Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

PFNA and DHS for AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures: radiographic measurements, morbidity and mortality

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

For this retrospective cohort study, we assessed pertrochanteric fracture types AO/OTA 31-A2. PFNA and DHS were the devices used. We determined both devices in relation to peri-operative variables, postoperative radiographic measurements, implant-related complications and mortality up to 2 years. The null hypothesis was no effect between the two devices.

Methods

This single-centre study was conducted based on our computerized data. The treatment period ranged from 2006 to 2015. Only patients with type AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures and an age ≥ 65 years were included. Apart from descriptive variables, the following measurements were assessed: (1) duration of surgery, (2) blood loss, (3) transfusion, (4) hospitalization, (5) tip-apex distance (TAD), (6) fracture reduction, (7) screw position, (8) implant-related complications, and (9) mortality. The follow-up was 2 years for each living patient. Missing data were evaluated by telephone call.

Results

A total of 375 consecutive patients were enrolled into three groups: (1) 75 patients treated with DHS and antirotation screw (ARS); (2); 100 patients treated with DHS + ARS + TSP (trochanteric stabilization plate); and (3) 200 patients treated with PFNA. Apart from dementia, the descriptive data (e.g., age and BMI) demonstrated no effects between the three groups. Compared to PFNA, DHS with or without TSP was adversely affected by a longer operation time, higher blood loss, increase in transfusion, and more implant-related complications including cut-out, infection and failure. The rate of cut-out was significantly higher in TAD ≥ 25 mm (p = 0.005), and PFNA demonstrated significantly better TAD measurements (p = 0.001), better fracture reduction (0.002), more central-central screw positions (p = 0.014), and less poor screw placement (p = 0.001). The mortality rate was without effect between the three groups (log rank 0.698).

Conclusions

DHS with or without TSP was associated with significantly higher rates of implant-related complications based on inferior radiographic measurements. Therefore, we only recommend PFNA for the treatment of proximal type AO/OTA 31-A2 femoral fractures.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association Classification, Database and Outcomes Committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(Supplement 10):S1–S163.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jönsson A, et al. Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:460–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shen L, Zhang Y, Shen Y, et al. Antirotation proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99:377–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tucker A, Donnelly KJ, Rowan C, et al. Is the best plate a nail? A review of 3230 unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:53–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C, et al. A comparison of the long nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31–A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2010;92:792–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jonnes C, Sm S, Najimudeen S. Type II intertrochanteric fractures: proximal femoral nailing (PFN) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS). Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016;4:23–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Zehir S, Zehir R, Zehir S, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation against dynamic hip screw for unstable trochanteric fractures; a prospective randomized comparison. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;41:393–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang K, Zhang S, Yang J, et al. Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2014;12:1628–33.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ma KL, Wang X, Luan FJ, et al. Proximal femoral nails antirotation, Gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100:859–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu Q, Xu X, Yang X, et al. Intramedullary nails versus sliding hip screws for AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures in adults: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;43:67–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu Y, Tao R, Liu F, et al. Mid-term outcomes after intramedullary fixation of peritrochanteric femoral fractures using the new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Injury. 2010;41:810–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, et al. The proximal femoral nail (PFN) - a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:53–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar R, Singh RN, Singh BN. Comparative prospective study of proximal femoral nail and dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture femur. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2012;3:28–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C, et al. Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail? A randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16:386–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reindl R, Harvey EJ, Berry GK, Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS), et al. Intramedullary verus extramedullary fixation for unstable intertrochenteric fractures: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2015;97:1905–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zou J, Xu Y, Yang H. A comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw devices in trochanteric fractures. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1057–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Simmermacher RK, Ljungqvist J, Bail H, AO-PFNA studygroup, et al. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury. 2008;39:932–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;348:87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cleveland M, Bosworth DM, Thompson FR, et al. A 10-year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1959;41:1399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2992–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Parker MJ. Cutting-out of the dynamic hip screw related to its position. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1992;74:625.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Statist Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. American Society of Anesthesiology. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology. 1963;24:111–4.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M, et al. Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip—blade vs screw. Injury. 2010;41:1292–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yu W, Zhang X, Zhu X, et al. Proximal femoral nails anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screws for treatment of stable intertrochanteric femur fractures: an outcome analyses with a minimum 4 years of follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;21(17):222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Galler M, Zellner M, Roll C, et al. A prospective study with 10 years follow-up of two-hundred patients with proximal femoral fracture. Injury. 2018;49:841–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, et al. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 2009;40:428–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mundi S, Chaudhry H, Bhandari M. Systemic review on the inclusion of patients with cognitive impairment in hip fractures trials: a missed opportunity? Can J Surg. 2014;57:E141–E145145.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsu CE, Chiu YC, Tsai SH, et al. Trochanter stabilising plate improves treatment outcomes in AO/OTA 31-A2 intertrochanteric fractures with critical thin femoral lateral walls. Injury. 2015;46:1047–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Puram C, Pradhan C, Patil A, et al. Outcome of dynamic hip screw augmented with trochanteric wiring for tretement of unstable type A2 intertrochanteric femur fractures. Injury. 2017;48(Suppl 2):S72–S7777.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Geller JA, Saifi C, Morrison TA, Macaulay W. Tip-apex distance of intramedullary devices as a predictor of cut-out failure in the treatment of pertrochanteric elderly hip fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34:719–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fujii T, Nakayama S, Hara M, et al. Tip-apex distance is most important of six predictors of screw cutout after internal fixation of intertrochanteric fractures in woman. JBJS Open Access. 2017;2:e0022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lenich A, Bachmeier S, Prantl L, et al. Is the rotation of the femoral head a potential initiation for cuting out? A theoretical and experimental approach. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic for Trauma, Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine, Hospital Barmherzige Brüder, Prüfeninger Str. 86, 93049, Regensburg, Germany

    Franz Müller, Matthias Doblinger & Bernd Füchtmeier

  2. Medical Statistics, Beverstr. 64, 59077, Hamm, Germany

    Tanja Kottmann

Authors
  1. Franz Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Doblinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tanja Kottmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernd Füchtmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FM collected and analysed data, and wrote the manuscript; MD acquired data; TK has done independetly the statistical analysis; BF has corrected the final version of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franz Müller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Franz Müller, Matthias Doblinger, Tanja Kottmann, and Bernd Füchtmeier declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Müller, F., Doblinger, M., Kottmann, T. et al. PFNA and DHS for AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures: radiographic measurements, morbidity and mortality. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 46, 947–953 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01251-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01251-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation