Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fatigue failure of the cephalomedullary nail: revision options, outcomes and review of the literature

  • Up-to date Review and Case Report • HIP - FRACTURES
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cephalomedullary nail (CMN) failure is a rare entity following hip fracture treatment. However, it poses significant challenges for revision surgery, both mechanically and biologically. Nail failure rates have been reported at < 2%; however, no published studies have reported revision surgery procedures and their respective outcomes. We present a regional experience, with outcomes, of the revision options. We identified 20 fatigued CMNs that underwent four different revision procedures. Mean age was 73 ± 15.24 years, with a 3:1 female preponderance, and a median ASA grade of 3. Post-operative CMN radiographs demonstrated a significant number of fractures were fixed in varus, with reductions in neck-shaft angles post-operatively. A “poor” quality of reduction resulted in significantly earlier nail failure, compared to “adequate” and “good” (p = 0.027). Tip-Apex Distance (TAD) mean was 23.2 ± 8.3 mm, and an adequate TAD with three-point fixation was seen in only 35% of cases. Mean time to failure was 401.0 ± 237.2 days, with mean age at failure of 74.0 ± 14.8 years. Options after failure included revision CMN nail, proximal femoral locking plate (PFLP), long-stem or restoration arthroplasty, or femoral endoprosthesis. Barthel Functional Index scores showed no significant difference at 3 and 12 months post-operatively, nor any difference between treatment groups. Mean 12-month mortality was 30%, akin to a primary hip fracture mortality risk according to NICE guidelines. Mortality rates were lowest in revision nails. Subsequent revision rates were higher in the PFLP group. There is no reported evidence on the best surgical technique for managing the failed CMN, with no clear functional benefit in the options above. Good surgical technique at the time of primary CMN surgery is critical in minimising fatigue failure. After revision, overall mortality rates were equivalent to reported primary hip fracture mortality rates. Further multicentre evaluations are required to assess which technique convey the best functional outcomes without compromising 12-month mortality rates.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN (2008) Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice: a review of the American Board of orthopaedic surgery database. JBJA(Am) 90:700–707

    Google Scholar 

  2. Giannoudis PV, Ahmad MA, Mineo GV, Tosounidis TI, Calori GM, Kanakaris NK (2013) Subtrochanteric fracture non-unions with implant failure manaed with the “Diamond” concept. Injury 44(S1):S76–S81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgartner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM (1995) The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. JBJS(Am) 77:1058–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abram SG, Pollard TC, Andrade AJ (2013) Inadequate ‘three-point’ proximal fixation predicts failure of the gamma nail. BJJ 95-B(6):625–630

    Google Scholar 

  5. Koval KJ, Aharonoff GB, Rokito AS, Lyon T, Zuckerman JD (1996) Patients with femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures; are they the same? Clin Orthop 330:166–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yli-Kyyny TT, Sund P, Juntunen M, Salo JJ, Kroger HP (2012) Extra- and intra-medullary imaplnts for the treatment of pertrochanteric fractures- results from a Finnish National Database Study of 14,915 patients. Injury 43:2156–2160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nikolaou VS, Papathanasopoulos A, Giannoudis PV (2008) Whats new in the management of proximal femoral fractures. Injury 39(12):1309–1318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Calebi L, Can M, Muralti HH, Yagmurlu MF, Yuksei HY, Bicimoglu A (2006) Indirect reduction and biological internal fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Injury 37:740–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindskog DM, Baumgaetner MR (2004) Unstable interochanteric hip fractures in the elderly. J Am Acad Ortho Surg 12(3):179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zain Elabdien BS, Olerud S, Karlstorm G (1984) The influence of age on the morphology of trochanteric fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 103:156–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pervez H, Parker MJ (2001) Results of the long gamma nail for complex proximal femoral fractures. Injury 32:704–707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Valverde JA, Alonso MG, Porro JG et al (1998) Use of the gamma nail in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 350:56–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY, Hui PW (1992) Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for peritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:345–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomized comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:789–793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Vries JS, Kloen P, Borens O, Marti RK, Helfet DL (2006) Treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions. Injury 37:203–211. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2005.09.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reindl R, Harvey EJ, Berry GK, Rahme E (2015) Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fractures; a prospective randomized control trial. JBJS(Am) 97:1905–1912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Maes M, Deboer Y, Brabants K (2012) Failure of the titanium trochanteric gamma nail in united femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Belg 78:552–557

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Speitling A, Taglang G, Ekholm C, Jonsson A (2010) 3066 consecutive gamma nails: 12 years experience at a single centre. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:133

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rybicki EF, Simonen FA, Weiss EK Jr (1972) On the mathematical analysis of stress in the human femur. J Biomech 5:203–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fielding JW, Cochran GV, Zickel RE (1974) Biomechanical characteristics and surgical management of subtrochanteric fractures. Clin Orthop North Am 5:629–650

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaebler C, Stanzl-Tschegg S, Tschegg EK, Kula C, Menth-Chiari WA, Wozasek GE et al (1999) Implant failure of the gamma nail. Injury 30(2):91–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sitthiseripratip K, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Stolen J, Mahaisavariya B, Bohez ELJ, Suwanprateeb J, Van Audekercke R, Oris P (2003) Finite element study of trochanteric gamma nail for trochanteric fracture. Med Eng Phys 25(2):99–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Seral B, Garcia JM, Cegonino J, Doblare M, Seral F (2004) Finite element study of intramedullary osteosynthesis in the treatment of trochanteric fractures of the hip: gamma and PFN. Injury 35(2):130–135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kasimatis GB, Lambiris E, Tyllianakis M, Giannikas D (2007) Gamma nail breakage: a report of four cases. J Ortho Surg 15(3):368–372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Georgiannos D, Lampridis V, Bisbinas I (2014) Complications following treatment of trochanteric fractures with the Gamma3 nail: is the latest version of gamma nail superior to its predecessor? Surg Res Pract. doi:10.1155/2014/143598

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Alvarez DB, Paz Aparicio J, Lopez-Anglada Fernandez E, Congazlez-Busto Mugica I, Nunez Batalla D, Paz Jimenez J (2004) Implant breakage, a rare complication with the Gamma nail: a review of 843 fractures of the proximal femur treated with a Gamma nail. Acta Orthop Belg 70(5):435–443

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zafiropoulos G, Pratt DJ (1994) Fractured gamma nail. Injury 25(5):331–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Iwakura T, Niikura T, Lee SY, Sakai Y, Nishida K, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2013) Breakage of a third generation gamma nail: a case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Orthop. doi:10.1155/2013/172352

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Randle JA, Meisami-Fard B, McKee MD (1999) Mechanical failure of a gamma nail in a patient with an impending pathological subtrochanteric fracture. Can J Surg 42(5):384–386

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Haidukewych GJ, Berry DJ (2004) Nonunion of fractures of the subtrochanteric region of the femur. CORR 419:185–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Boriani S, De Iure F, Bettelli G, Specchia L, Bungaro P, Montanari G et al (1994) The result of a multi-center Italian study on the use of the gamma nail for the treatment of pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures: a review of 1181 cases. Chir Organi Mov 79(2):193–203

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Doorn R, Stapert JWJL (2000) Treatment of impending and actual pathological femoral fractures with the long Gamma nail in the Netherlands. Eur J Surg 166(3):247–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Docquier PL, Manche E, Autrique JC, Geulette B (2002) Complications associated with gamma nailing: a review of 439 cases. Acta Orthop Belg 68(3):251–257

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sehat K, Baker RP, Pattison G, Price R, Harries WJ, Chesser TJS (2005) The use of the long gamma nail in proximal femoral fractures. Injury 36(11):1350–1354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tzioupis C, Panteliadis P, Gamie Z, Tsiridis E (2011) Revision of a nonunited subtrochanteric femoral fracture around a failed intramedullary nail with the use of RIA products, BMP-7 and hydroxyapatite: a case report. J Med Case Rep 5:87

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wee JLH, Sathappan SS, Yeo MSW, Low YP (2009) Management of gamma nail breakage with a bipolar hemi-arthroplasty. Singapore Med J 50(1):e44

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen T, Li K, Wang X, Lan H, Zhang J (2010) Revsion cause and effect of gamma nail fixation (Abstract only-Original article in Chinese). Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 24(1):78–81

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hernigou P, Poignard A, Mathieu G, Cohen G, Manicom O, Filippini P (2006) Total hip arthroplasty after failure of per- and subtrochanteric fracture fixation in elderly subjects (Abstract only). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 92(4):310–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson B, Stevenson J, Chamma R, Patel A, Rhee SJ, Level C, Starks I, Roberts PJ (2014) Short-term follow-up of pertrochanteric fractures treated using the proximal femoral locking plate. J Orthop Trauma 28:283–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Forward DP, Doro CJ, O’Toole RV, Kim H, Floyd JCP, Sciadini MF, Turen CH, Hsieh AH, Nascone JW (2012) A biomechanical comparison of a locking plate, a nail and a 95 angled blade plate for fixation of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma 26:334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ozkan K, Turkmen I, Sahin A, Yildiz Y, Erturk S, Soylemez MS (2015) Biomechanical comparison of proximal femoral nails and locking proximal anatomic femoral plates in femoral fracture fixation. Indian J Orthop 49(3):347–351

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Arrington ED, Smith WJ, Chambers HG, Bucknell AL, Davino NA (1996) Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting. Clin Orthop Relat Res 329:300–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kovar FM, Wozasek GE (2011) Bone graft harvesting using RIA system- A quantative assessment. Central Eur J Med 123:285. doi:10.1007/s00508-011-1565-8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Friedlaender GE, Perry CR, Cole JD, Cook SD, Cierny G, Muschler GF, Zych GA, Calhoun JH, LaForte AJ, Yin S (2001) Osteogenic protein-1 (bone morphogenic protein-7) in the treatment of tibial nonunions. JBJS 83-A(Supp 1 part II):S151–S158

    Google Scholar 

  45. Conway JD, Shabtai L, Bauernschub A, Specht SC (2014) BMP-7 versus BMP-2 for the treatment of long bone nonunion. Orthopaedics 37(12):e1049–e1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Swanson EA, Garrard EC, Bernstein DT, O’Connor DP, Brinker MR (2015) Results of a systematic approach to exchange nailing for the treatment of aseptic femoral nonunions. J Orthop Trauma 29:21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brinker MR, O’Connor DP, Monla YT, Earthman TP (2007) Metabolic and endocrine abnormalities in patients with nonunions. J Orthop Trauma 21:557–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Haidukewych GJ, Berry DJ (2003) Hip arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. JBJS(Am) 85(5):899–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Stappaerts KH, Deldycke J, Broos PL, Saes FF, ROmmens PM, Claes P (1995) Treatment of unstable peritrochanteric fractures in elderly patients with a compression hip screw or with the Vandeputte (VDP) endoprosthesis: a prospective randomized study. J Orthop Trauma 9(4):292–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Haentjens P, Lamraski G (2005) Endoprosthetic replacement of unstable, comminuted intertrochanteric fractures of the femur in the elderly, osteoprotic patient: a review. Disabil Rehabil 27(18–19):1167–1180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. El-Ghandour SM (2014) Endoprosthetic replacement for failed internally fixed intertrochanteric hip fractures. EJO 49(1):61–68

    Google Scholar 

  52. Chandrasekar CR, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu AT (2008) Modular endoprosthetic replacement for metastatic tumours of the proximal femur. J Orthop Surg Res 3:50

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Harvey N, Ahlmann ER, Allison DC, Wang L, Menendez LR (2012) Endoprostheses last longer than intramedullary devices in proximal femur metastases. CORR 470(3):684–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Calabro T, Van Rooyen R, Piraino I et al (2016) Reconstruction of the proximal femur with a modular resection prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26(4):415–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Glenshane Road, Londonderry, BT47 6SB, Northern Ireland, UK

    Adam Tucker, Michael Warnock & Andrew P. Foster

  2. Fracture Outcomes and Research Department, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, Northern Ireland, UK

    Sinead McDonald

  3. Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, Northern Ireland, UK

    Laurence Cusick

Authors
  1. Adam Tucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Warnock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sinead McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laurence Cusick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew P. Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Tucker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tucker, A., Warnock, M., McDonald, S. et al. Fatigue failure of the cephalomedullary nail: revision options, outcomes and review of the literature. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28, 511–520 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2059-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2059-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation