Introduction: Management of unstable intertrochanteric fractures poses challenges in terms of obtaining stable fixation and good postoperative outcomes. There is a paucity of clinical data comparing the commonly used Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) and Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) implants, especially in relation to osteoporosis. Aim:To assess comparative performance of PFN and PFNA in the setting of osteoporosis. Materials and Methods:Patients presenting with unstable intertrochanteric fractures (AO 31.A2 and 31.A3) were included and treated with either PFN or PFNA. Preoperative radiographs of normal side were used to grade osteoporosis by Singh's index. Grade 3 or less was considered significant. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for tip-apex distance, Cleveland index and quality of reduction. Patients were followed up for a minimum of nine months and any complications noted. Comparison of functional outcomes was done using the Harris Hip Score and Parker-Palmer mobility score at final follow up. Statistical analysis was done using the unpaired t-test/MannWhitney U test and Chi-square test/Fisher's-exact test. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results:The study included 48 patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures, of which 23 were treated with PFN and 25 with PFNA. Average age of PFN group was 60.78 years and of PFNA group was 74.12 years. In PFN group 8 patients (38.09%) and in PFNA group 13 patients (54.1%) had Singh's osteoporotic index of ≤ 3. The average Harris Hip Score was 75.37 and 78.85 in PFN and PFNA groups (p=0.54) respectively. From PFN and PFNA groups, 35% and 32% patients respectively were able to return to pre-injury mobility status as assessed by the Parker-Palmer mobility score (p=0.83). Out of eight implant related complications; seven were in patients treated with PFN (p=0.02). Among patients with Singh's grade ≤ 3, 3 (37.5%) in PFN group suffered from implant failure whereas all 13 patients in PFNA group had successful outcome (p=0.04). Conclusion:Although functional outcomes achieved with both implants are similar (p=0.83), number of implant related complications were fewer with PFNA (p=0.02), even in osteoporotic group (p=0.04). We recommend use of the PFNA in unstable fractures, especially in the elderly osteoporotic population.Anirudh Sharma et al., A Comparison of the Clinico-Radiological Outcomes with Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) www.jcdr.net

Background: Cephalomedullary nails are presently the gold standard in management of unstable trochanteric fractures. The tip-apex distance (TAD) is one of the most important factors that determines success or failure of fixation, but was described originally in context of an extramedullary hip screw. Cephalomedullary nails use a different biomechanical approach to fixation; and it is hypothesized that the TAD rule may not apply similarly with these. The aim of this study is to assess whether a high TAD correlates with poor outcomes with cephalomedullary nails, and to elucidate other factors that may predict such outcome. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographic records of patients with intertrochanteric fractures, treated at our institution over a 2-year period. Those with unstable fractures (31.A2 and 31.A3), and who were treated with cephalomedullary nails were included in the study. The TAD and the position of the device in the femoral head (Cleveland index) were assessed. Other factors that could influence outcome like age, gender, AO fracture type, restoration of neck-shaft angle and degree of osteoporosis were analysed. Radiographic records of up-to at-least 3 months post-operatively were assessed for complications. Results: After applying the exclusion criteria, 75 patients were included in the analysis. The overall rate of complications was 12%. They occurred in two major patterns -varus collapse and cut-out occurred in 5 patients (6.67%), and device migration in 4 patients (5.33%). The average TAD of patients with cut-out was 28.78 mm, compared to 19.44 mm in those without cut-out (p ¼ 0.002). Our data predicted a cutoff TAD >23.56 mm as most significant for cut-out with cephalomedullary nails. On univariate logistic regression, high TAD (p ¼ 0.009), sub-optimal device positioning (p ¼ 0.02) and poor restoration of neckshaft angle (p ¼ 0.04) were found to be significant for varus collapse and cut-out, but not for complications relating to device migration. On multivariate analysis, none of the above factors reached statistical significance in isolation. Conclusion: As with extramedullary devices, TAD, along with sub-optimal device positioning and poor restoration of neck-shaft angle is a useful predictor of cut-out even with cephalomedullary nails, negating the initial hypothesis. The above factors in combination have a more significant effect than any one factor in isolation to cause varus collapse and implant cut-out. However these do not affect Z effect, reverse Z effect or other types of device migration seen especially with dual-screw nails.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundFractures of the proximal femur are amongst the most common injuries in the elderly population. While there is a clear consensus regarding the management of displaced femoral neck fractures, the management of non-displaced fractures is less clear. Both fixation and arthroplasty are valid treatment options. Internal fixation is a less invasive procedure, but it carries the risks of non-union and avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head. The literature describes varying complication rates associated with these risks. We aim to describe a series of elderly patients above the age of 65 years with non-displaced fractures of the femoral neck who were treated with internal fixation. Our objectives are to determine the union rate and complications in this group and to elucidate the factors that influence these outcomes. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of all patients aged 65 years and older who presented with femoral neck fractures at our level 1 trauma unit between 2018 and 2020. Fractures were classified using the Garden classification system, and only those with Garden 1 or 2 fractures (non-displaced) were included. Preoperative radiographs or intraoperative fluoroscopy images were used to classify fractures using the Pauwels classification. Serial postoperative radiographs and clinical notes (up to 24 months postoperatively) were reviewed to assess the union rate and the development of complications.Both non-union and AVN were analysed for their associations with age, sex, Pauwels grade and comorbidities. A subgroup analysis of the complications was performed to elucidate their association with age groups (<80 and >80 years) and types of fixations (dynamic hip screws {DHS} and cannulated screws). ResultsA total of 148 patients, consisting of 60 males and 88 females, were included in the analysis. The patients had a mean age of 78.5 years (ranging from 65 to 98 years). The union rate without any degree of AVN was 90.7%, with six non-unions (4.05%) and six patients experiencing AVN (4.05%). No difference in outcome was detected between the two groups based on age.High (type 2 or 3) Pauwels grade (p = 0.05) and treatment with cannulated screws (p = 0.02) were indicated as significant factors for non-union. All patients who developed AVN were noted to have a comorbidity that is known to predispose them to AVN. ConclusionOur series shows a union rate of 90.7%, which is comparable to the union rates reported in other published literature. Our results suggest that age does not independently influence the outcome of fixation for these fractures. We conclude that fractures with vertical orientation (Pauwels grade 2 or 3), when treated with cannulated screws, are more likely to result in non-union. AVN is the second most common complication after non-union, which is also associated with other risk factors for AVN.