Comparison of Dynamic Versus Static Lag Screw Modes for Short Cephalomedullary Nails in the Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors

  • Naruepol Ruangsillapanan, MD Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
  • Tana Rattanakitkoson, MD Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
  • Teerayut Ittimongkonkul, MD Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56929/jseaortho.v46i2.156

Keywords:

unstable intertrochanteric fracture, cephalomedullary nail, dynamic proximal screw mode, static proximal screw mode, union times

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the static locked and sliding proximal lag screw modes of short cephalomedullary nail in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Methods: Ninety-four patients (age>60 years) with low energy unstable intertrochanteric fractures were randomized for treatment into two groups. They were treated with static and sliding proximal lag screw modes of short cephalomedullary nail. The pre-operative variables, operative time, fluoroscopy time, blood loss, tip apex distance, and reduction quality were recorded for each patient. Post-operative follow-ups were undertaken every other week until bone union or implant failure occurred. Plain anteroposterior and lateral radiographs (both hip) were obtained at all visits. Ipsilateral leg length discrepancy (LLD), radiographic union score for hip complications, and fixation failure were recorded.

Results: The mean follow-up time was 16.7 months (range 12–24). The mean bone union times of static locked (n=35) and sliding proximal (n=34) screw mode groups were 12.4 weeks and more than 11.2 weeks, respectively; the difference was not significant (p=0.213). The ipsilateral LLD of the sliding proximal (mean 4 mm) and static locked (mean 2 mm) screw mode groups showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.001). Post-operative complications (lag screw perforated to hip joint, lag screw cutout from the femoral head, and excessive inferolateral lag screw sliding) developed in 8.82% patients in sliding proximal group, whereas, no complications were reported in the static locked group.

Conclusions: Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fracture using static locked proximal lag screw mode of cephalomedullary nail showed some advantages over sliding proximal lag screw in terms of less complication and ipsilateral LLD; however, the bone union times were not different. Therefore, a static locked proximal screw mode is preferable over sliding proximal screw mode in treating unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y, et al. Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury 2010;41:1234-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.005

Kempf I, Grosse A, Taglang G, E. et al. Gamma nail in the treatment of closed trochanteric fractures. Results and indications of 121 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:75-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.12.013

Chang SM, Zhang YQ, Ma Z, et al. Fracture reduction with positive medial cortical support: a key element in stability reconstruction for the unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015;135:811-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2206-x

Socci AR, Casemyr NE, Leslie MP, et al. Implant options for treating intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: rationale, evidence, and recommendations. Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:128-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0134.R1

Kashigar A, Vincent A, Gunton MJ, et al. Predictors of failure for cephalomedullary nailing of proximal femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1029-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B8.33644

Mao W, Ni H, Li L, et al. Comparison of Baumgaertner and chang reduction quality criteria for the assessment of trochanteric fractures. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:502-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0032.R1

Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, et al. The value of the tip- apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77:1058-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199507000-00012

Kuzyk PR, Shah S, Zdero R, et al. A biomechanical comparison of static versus dynamic lag screw modes for cephalomedullary nails used to fix unstable peritrochanteric fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72: E65-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182170823

Huang Y, Zhang C, Luo Y. A comparative biomechanical study of proximal femoral nail (InterTAN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation for intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 2013;37:2465-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2120-1

Kammerlander C, Hem ES, Klopfer T, et al. Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) - A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Injury 2018;49: 1436-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022

Chen WT, Han DC, Zhang PX, et al. A special healing pattern in stable metaphyseal fractures. Acta Orthop 2015;86:238-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.1003127

Frank T, Osterhoff G, Sprague S, et al. The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) identifies radiographic nonunion of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474: 1396-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4680-4

Meermans G, Malik A, Witt J, et al. Preoperative Radiographic Assessment of Limb-length Discrepancy in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469:1677–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1588-x

Takigami I, Ohnishi K, Ito Y, et al. Acetabular perforation after medial migration of the helical blade. J Orthop Trauma 2011;25:e86-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181fae12e

Liu W, Zhou D, Liu F, et al. Mechanical complications of intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with trochanteric femoral nails. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;75:304-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31829a2c43

Liu JJ, Shan LC, Deng BY, et al. Reason and treatment of failure of proximal femoral nail antirotation internal fixation for femoral intertrochanteric fractures of senile patients. Genet Mol Res 20147;13:5949-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4238/2014.August.7.10

Seyhan M, Turkmen I, Unay K, et al. Do PFNA devices and Intertan nails both have the same effects in the treatment of trochanteric fractures? A prospective clinical study. J Orthop Sci 2015; 20:1053-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-015-0750-4

Gross RH. Leg length discrepancy: how much is too much?. Orthopedics 1978;1:307-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19780701-08

Shin Y-S, Chae J-E, Kang T-W, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing two cephalomedullary nails for elderly intertrochanteric fractures: Zimmer natural nail versus proximal femoral nail antirotation II. Injury 2017;48:1550-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.011

Downloads

Published

2022-07-28

How to Cite

1.
Ruangsillapanan, MD N, Rattanakitkoson, MD T, Ittimongkonkul, MD T. Comparison of Dynamic Versus Static Lag Screw Modes for Short Cephalomedullary Nails in the Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JseaOrtho [Internet]. 2022 Jul. 28 [cited 2022 Oct. 7];46(2):10-6. Available from: https://www.jseaortho.org/index.php/jsao/article/view/156

Issue

Section

Original Articles