Extra- vs. intramedullary treatment of pertrochanteric fractures: a biomechanical in vitro study comparing dynamic hip screw and intramedullary nail

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Lukas Weiser ; Andreas A. Ruppel…
• 关键词：Pertrochanteric fracture ; Hip fracture ; Sliding hip screw ; Dynamic hip screw ; Intramedullary nail ; Intertan nail
• 刊名：Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：August 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：135
• 期：8
• 页码：1101-1106
• 全文大小：663 KB
• 参考文献：1.Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Jarvinen M (1996) Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone 18(1 Suppl):57S-3SPubMed View Article
  2.White SM, Griffiths R (2011) Projected incidence of proximal femoral fracture in England: a report from the NHS hip fracture anaesthesia network (HIPFAN). Injury 42(11):1230-233PubMed View Article
  3.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. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(4):700-07PubMed View Article
  4.Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2010) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD000093PubMed
  5.Aktselis I, Kokoroghiannis C, Fragkomichalos E, Koundis G, Deligeorgis A, Daskalakis E et al (2014) Prospective randomised controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus a sliding hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Int Orthop 38(1):155-61PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  6.Shen L, Zhang Y, Shen Y, Cui Z (2013) Antirotation proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(4):377-83PubMed View Article
  7.Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, Malik H, Donnachie N (2009) The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 40(4):428-32PubMed View Article
  8.Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C, Greenwood R, Harries WJ, Chesser TJ (2010) A comparison of the long gamma 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 Joint Surg Am 92(4):792-98PubMed View Article
  9.Yli-Kyyny TT, Sund R, Juntunen M, Salo JJ, Kroger HP (2012) Extra- and intramedullary implants for the treatment of pertrochanteric fractures—results from a Finnish National Database Study of 14,915 patients. Injury 43(12):2156-160PubMed View Article
  10.Huang X, Leung F, Xiang Z, Tan PY, Yang J, Wei DQ et al (2013) Proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw fixation for trochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci World J 2013:805805
  11.Liu M, Yang Z, Pei F, Huang F, Chen S, Xiang Z (2010) A meta-analysis of the gamma nail and dynamic hip screw in treating peritrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 34(3):323-28PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  12.Matre K, Vinje T, Havelin LI, Gjertsen JE, Furnes O, Espehaug B et al (2013) TRIGEN INTERTAN intramedullary nail versus sliding hip screw: a prospective, randomized multicenter study on pain, function, and complications in 684 patients with an intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture and one year of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(3):200-08PubMed View Article
  13.G?tze B, Bonnaire F, Weise K, Friedl HP (1998) Loadability of osteosynthesis of unstable per- and subtrochanteric fractures: an experimental study testing the proximal femoral nail (PFN), the gamma-nail, the DHS/trochanteric stabilization plate, the 95°-angled blade plate and the UFN/spiral blade. Akt Traumatol 28:197-04
  14.Fensky F, Nuchtern JV, Kolb JP, Huber S, Rupprecht M, Jauch SY et al (2013) Cement augmentation of the proximal femoral nail antirotation for the treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures—a biomechanical cadaver study. Injury 44(6):802-07PubMed View Article
  15.Rupprecht M, Grossterlinden L, Ruecker AH, de Oliveira AN, Sellenschloh K, Nuchtern J et al (2011) A comparative biomechanical analysis of fixation devices for unstable femoral neck fractures: the Intertan versus cannulated screws or a dynamic hip screw. J Trauma 71(3):625-34PubMed View Article
  16.Luo Q, Yuen G, Lau TW, Yeung K, Leung F (2013) A biomechanical study comparing helical blade with screw design for sliding hip fixations of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Sci World J 2013:351936
  17.O’Neill F, Condon F, McGloughlin T, Lenehan B, Coffey JC, Walsh M (2011) Dynamic hip screw versus DHS blade: a biomechanical comparison of the fixation achieved by each implant in bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):616-21PubMed View Article
  18.Bonnaire F, Weber A, Bosl O, Eckhardt C, Schwieger K, Linke B (2007) “Cutting out-in pertrochanteric fractures—problem of osteoporosis? Unfallchirurg 110(5):425-32PubMed View Article
  19.Haynes RC, Poll RG, Miles AW, Weston RB (1997) Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut-out with the gamma locking nail and AO dynamic hip screw. Injury 28(5-):337-41PubMed View Article
  20.Pervez H, Parker MJ, Vowler S (2004) Prediction of fixation failure after sliding hip screw fixation. Injury 35(10):994-98PubMed View Article
  21.Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J et al (2
• 作者单位：Lukas Weiser (1)
  Andreas A. Ruppel (2)
  Jakob V. Nüchtern (1)
  Kay Sellenschloh (3)
  Johannes Zeichen (2)
  Klaus Püschel (4)
  Michael M. Morlock (3)
  Wolfgang Lehmann (1)
  
  1. Department of Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistra?e 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany
  2. Trauma and Orthopedic Department, Johannes Wesling Klinikum Minden, Minden, Germany
  3. Institute of Biomechanics, TUHH Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany
  4. Institute of Forensic Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Orthopedics
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1434-3916

文摘

Introduction Due to the demographic trend, pertrochanteric fractures of the femur will gain increasing importance in the future. Both extra- and intramedullary implants are used with good results in the treatment of these fractures. New, angular stable extramedullary implants promise increased postoperative stability even with unstable fractures. Additional trochanteric plates are intended to prevent secondary impaction, varisation and shortening of the fracture, as well as medialisation of the femoral shaft. The aim of this study was to perform a biomechanical comparison of both procedures regarding their postoperative stability and failure mechanisms. Materials and methods Twelve fresh-frozen human femurs were randomized into two groups based on the volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Standardized pertrochanteric fractures (AO31-A2.3) were generated and treated either with an angular stable dynamic hip screw (DHS) or an intramedullary nail (nail). Correct implant position and the tip–apex distance (TAD) were controlled postoperatively using X-ray. Specimens were mounted in a servohydraulic testing machine and an axial loading was applied according to a single-leg stance model. Both groups were biomechanically compared with regard to native and postoperative stiffness, survival during cyclic testing, load to failure, and failure mechanisms. Results TAD, vBMD, and native stiffness were similar for both groups. The stiffness decreased significantly from native to postoperative state in all specimens (p?<?0.001). The postoperative stiffness of both groups varied non-significantly (p?=?0.275). The failure loads for specimens treated with the nail were significantly higher than for those treated with the DHS (8480.8?±?1238.9?N vs. 2778.2?±?196.8?N; p?=?0.008). Conclusions Extra- and intramedullary osteosynthesis showed comparable results as regards postoperative stiffness and survival during cyclic testing. Since the failure load of the nail was significantly higher in the tested AO31-A2.3 fracture model, we conclude that intramedullary implants should be preferred in these, unstable, fractures.