Functional and radiological comparison of three cephalomedullary nails with different designs used in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures of elderly
Access
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDate
2022Author
Yapıcı, FurkanÜçpunar, Hanifi
Gür, Volkan
Onac, Osman
Alpay, Yakup
Karaköse, Reşit
Çamurcu, Yalkın
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Yapıcı, F., Üçpınar, H., Gür, V., Onac, O., Alpay, Y., Karaköse, R., & Çamurcu, Y. (2022). Functional and radiological comparison of three cephalomedullary nails with different designs used in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures of elderly. ULUSAL TRAVMA VE ACIL CERRAHI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF TRAUMA & EMERGENCY SURGERY, 28(5), 668-677. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2020.80733Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study to compare three cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) with different designs in terms of complication, reoperation, implant failure, mortality rates, and functional outcomes in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures (UIFs).
METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with UIFs (AO/OTA type 31-A2 and 31-A3) who were treated with one of these
CMNs (74 patients with Talon-PFN, 70 patients with PFN-III, and 69 patients with Intertan) between October 2014 and October 2018.
RESULTS: A total of 213 patients (122 females and 91 males) with a mean age of 81.0±9.3 years have participated in this study. The
mean follow-up time was 26.1±6.3 months. Malfixation was the most common complication and the most common reason of reoperation for each type of CMN. Complication and reoperation rates, post-operative functional status, mean union times, and overall
mortality rates were similar between groups. Mean operation/fluoroscopy time and mean blood loss were low in the Talon-PFN group,
whereas the highest means of these parameters were in the PFN-III group. There were six (8.2%) implant failures in the Talon-PFN
group and one (1.5%) in PFN-III group. No implant failure was seen in the Intertan group. The highest rate (58.6%) of anatomic reduction was detected in PFN-III group.
CONCLUSION: Our study results showed that each implant type had its own advantages and disadvantages in the treatment of UIFs
with similar functional and reoperation outcomes. Intertan was advantageous with its absence of implant failures. Talon-PFN decreased
the operation/fluoroscopy time and intraoperative blood loss but had the highest implant failure rate. There was a need for more
anatomic reduction to centralize two separate parallel lag screws in the femoral neck in PFN-III group, and that costs operation/fluoroscopy time and blood loss. Malfixation, which was the most common cause of complications and reoperations, should be avoided.