Trochanteric entry femoral nails yield better femoral version and lower revision rates-A large cohort multivariate regression analysis

Surgical management of bifocal femoral fractures: a systematic review and pooled analysis of treatment with a single implant versus double implants

INTRODUCTION

Fractures of the proximal femur accompanied by a fracture of the femoral shaft are relatively rare, with a reported prevalence between 1 and 12%. Multiple surgical options are available, consisting of treatment with a single implant or with double implants. Controversy exists about the optimal management. A systematic review and pooled analysis were performed to assess the most reliable treatment for bifocal femoral fractures of the femur.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted on July 15, 2022. Selected studies were screened on title and abstract by two researchers independently, and full texts were read by both authors. Emphasis was put on adverse events such as postoperative infection, healing complications, malalignment, and functional outcome using either a single implant or double implants.

RESULTS

For the proximal femoral fractures, no significant difference could be confirmed for avascular necrosis of the femoral neck (5.1% for single implant and 3.8% for double implants), nonunion (6.4% for single implant and 7.8% for double implants), or varus malalignment (6.6% for single implant and 10.9% for double implants). This study also suggests that the number of implants is irrelevant for complications of the femoral shaft regarding the rates of postoperative infection and healing complications. Pooled rates of bone healing complications were 1.6-2.7-fold higher when patients were treated with a single implant, but statistical significance could not be confirmed. For hardware failure, revision surgery, leg length discrepancy, and functional outcome, no difference between the two groups was found either.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled proportions of all postoperative complications had overlapping confidence intervals; thus, no inference about a statistically significant difference on the number of implants used for treating ipsilateral fractures of the femur can be made. Both treatment groups showed a similar functional outcome at the last moment of follow-up, with more than 75% of the patients reporting a good outcome.

CT analysis of femoral malrotation after intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures

PURPOSE

Functional results after internal fixation of trochanteric femoral fractures may be negatively affected by healing in a non-physiological position. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence and severity of femoral malrotation after nailing of trochanteric fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective study focused on a CT analysis of malrotation after intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures (AO 31A1-3) in 101 patients. We recorded the type of fracture, method of anesthesia, scheduled surgery vs. acute surgery, and the surgeon's experience as possible risk factors for limb malrotation after trochanteric fracture surgeries.

RESULTS

The average extent of malrotation was 9° of internal rotation ranging from 29° of external to 48°of internal rotation. In 35% of patients, we observed a rotation greater than 15°, and in 15 patients (15%), the rotation was greater than 25°. The risk of significant internal malrotation was significantly higher than external malrotation (37 vs. 4 patients). None of the factors observed proved to be statistically significant. The effect of general anesthesia and the type of intertrochanteric fracture came closest to having a significant effect on rotational error.

CONCLUSION

Improper reduction of a trochanteric fracture is a common problem that can lead to femur malrotation. In our study, a rotational error greater than 15° occurred in 35% of the patients, but none of the monitored factors represented a statistically significant risk for this complication.

Safety and efficacy of a novel cephalomedullary nail femoral shaft fractures: a retrospective observational cohort in 33 patients

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in femoral shaft fracture fixation, the nonunion rate remains relatively high; and there is limited data on the efficacy and failure rate of specific implants. A novel cephalomedullary nail provides the ability to treat femur shaft fractures in isolation, with associated ipsilateral femur injuries, and provides various options for proximal and distal fixation exists on the market; but literature remains limited on the safety and efficacy of this implant. The aim of this study is to evaluate the early failure rate of this cephalomedullary nail, while comparing the nonunion rate to what is currently presented in the literature. This study is the first of its kind in evaluation of a specific implant for treatment of femoral shaft fractures and ipsilateral pathology.

METHODS

Patients over 18 years of age, with traumatic femur shaft fractures, treated with this particular cephalomedullary nail and available for a minimum of 3-month follow-up were included for analysis. Data was collected by retrospective chart review and review of existing radiographs. Demographic data, injury details, AO/OTA fracture classification, and implant details were recorded for each patient. Primary outcome measured was implant failures (screw or nail breakage). Secondary outcomes measured included malunion, nonunion, deep infection, post-operative complications, and need for reoperation.

RESULTS

Of the 33 patients included for analysis, 1 patient went on to non-union. There were no cases of implant failure. The single nonunion was a high-energy mechanism, open fracture, and higher level AO/OTA classification. The remaining 32 reached radiographic union at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

The nonunion rate of this novel cephalomedullary nail is comparable to what is reported in the literature. This nail is a safe and effective implant to treat femoral shaft fractures with a variety of ipsilateral femoral shaft injuries and reliably leads fracture union. Further studies are needed analyzing implant failure and comparing specific implants.

Greater trochanteric versus piriformis fossa entry nails for femur shaft fractures: Resolving the controversy

BACKGROUND

Intramedullary nailing is the treatment of choice for shaft of femur fractures in adults. Antegrade nails involve entry through either piriformis fossa (PE) or greater trochanteric (GT) tip. The superiority of one entry point over the other is a matter of debate, and the present review was done to determine the same.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is GT entry for antegrade femur nailing superior to the PE for shaft femur fractures in adults?

OBJECTIVE

The present systematic review was conducted to determine the superiority of one entry point over the other by comparing the outcome parameters like operative time, exposure to fluoroscopy, mal-unions, non unions, abductor weakness, varus malalignment and Harris Hip scores (HHS).

METHODOLOGY

Three databases of PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched for relevant articles that directly compared GT with PE for nailing in shaft femur fractures in adults.

RESULTS

We analysed a total of 9 studies published between the years 2011-2017. There were 5 retrospective and 4 prospective studies, out of which 3 were randomised. The total number of patients was 256 in GT group and 460 in PE group.

OUTCOMES

There was significant superiority of GT entry over PE on meta analysis; lesser operation time: standard mean difference (SMD): -21.01; lesser exposure to fluoroscopy : SMD: 36.36; lesser incidence of abductor weakness: Odd's ratio (OR): 14.35; better functional outcome (HHS): SMD -2.48.

CONCLUSION

GT entry nails are superior to PE nails for treating shaft of femur fractures in adults. They have a shorter learning curve and better functional outcomes, however the rates of union are comparable in both.