Orthopaedics Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine,
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery,
University of Foggia, Policlinico Riuniti di Foggia
, Foggia
, Italy
Aim Significant risk factors for femoral nail cutout are well-documented, primarily in the context of single-screw proximal nails. However, it remains uncertain whether those same risk factors are applicable when considering different implant devices. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare cutout risk factors between single- versus double-screw proximal femoral nails. Methods Patients over the age of 75 with intertrochanteric femur fractures (AO Classification 31-A1 or 31-A2) were included in the multicentre study. A study group was treated with a double-screw nail, while a control group received single-screw device. Demographic data, surgical time (min), fracture pattern, distal locking, reduction quality, comorbidities, tip-apex distance (TAD) and 12-month functional scores was collected. Results Two hundred patients were enrolled, 100 for each group. Nine patients experienced a cutout complication, five in the study and four in the control group. The main differences were in distal locking configurations (p<0.05) and in TAD values (p<0.05). The TAD value was higher in the study than in the control group (30.40±0.89 versus 26.79±1.79). No differences at 12-month follow up were reported according to functional scores. Conclusion This study provides insights into the choice of nail systems for intertrochanteric femur fractures, highlighting the importance of distal locking configurations and TAD values. The double screw nail exhibits quite a tolerance by having a higher average TAD value. These findings may guide clinical decisionmaking in the treatment of this challenging fracture type.
Maccagnano G, Pesce V, Vicenti G, Noia G, Coviello M, Bortone I, et al. The effect of combined drug therapy in lateral fragility fractures of the femur: a prospective observational study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022;26(1 Suppl):43–52.
2.
Aros B, Tosteson AN, Gottlieb DJ, Koval KJ. Is a sliding hip screw or im nail the preferred implant for intertrochanteric fracture fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2827–32.
3.
Sharma A, Sethi A, Sharma S. Treatment of stable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur with proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw: a comparative study. Rev Bras Ortop. 2018;53:477–81.
4.
Zhang Y, Zhang S, Wang S, Zhang H, Zhang W, Liu P, et al. Long and short intramedullary nails for fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103:685–90.
5.
Geller JA, Saifi C, Morrison TA, Macaulay W. Tipapex distance of intramedullary devices as a predictor of cut-out failure in the treatment of peritrochanteric elderly hip fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34:719–22.
6.
Paul JP. Intramedullary femoral nails: one or two lag screws? A preliminary study. Med Eng Phys. 2004;26(359).
7.
Kubiak EN, Bong M, Park SS, Kummer F, Egol K, Koval KJ. Intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: one or two lag screws. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:12–7.
8.
Kleftouris G, Tosounidis TH, Panteli M, Gathen M, Giannoudis PV. Endovis nail versus dynamic hip screw for unstable pertrochanteric fractures: a feasibility randomised control trial including patients with cognitive impairment. J Clin Med. 2023;12.
9.
Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007. Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 Suppl.).
10.
Coviello M, Ippolito F, Abate A, Zavattini G, Zaccari D, Leone A, et al. Computer-assisted navigation for intramedullary nailing of intertrochanteric femur fractures: a preliminary result.
11.
Zhang L, Pan Z, Zheng X, Wang Q, Tang P, Zhou F, et al. Prospective randomized multicenter noninferiority clinical trial evaluating the use of TFN-advanced. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023;49:1561–75.
12.
Ryan SP, Politzer C, Green C, Wellman S, Bolognesi M, Seyler T. Albumin versus American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: which is more predictive of complications following total joint arthroplasty? Orthopedics. 2018;41:354–62.
13.
Elm E, DG A, M E, SJ P, PC G, JP V. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344–9.
14.
Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1058–64.
15.
Baumgaertner MR, Solberg BD. Awareness of tipapex distance reduces failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:969–71.
16.
Schmidt-Rohlfing B, Heussen N, Knobe M, Pfeifer R, Kaneshige P, H.C. Reoperation rate after internal fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures with the percutaneous compression plate: what are the risk factors? J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27:312–7.
17.
Upadhayay A, Mittal S, Kumar A, Trikha V. Intramedullary femur nailing in intertrochanteric fractures: postoperatively do helical blades migrate more than lag screws? A randomized controlled trial. Indian J Orthop. 2023;57:1054–62.
18.
Vishwanathan K, Akbari K, Patel AJ. Is the modified Harris hip score valid and responsive instrument for outcome assessment in the Indian population with pertrochanteric fractures? J Orthop. 2018;15:40–6.
19.
Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–8.
20.
Maccagnano G, Pesce V, Noia G, Coviello M, Vicenti G, Vitiello R, et al. The effects of a new protocol on blood loss in total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Rev (Pavia. 2022;14(37625).
21.
Rollo G, Tartaglia N, Falzarano G, Pichierri P, Stasi A, Medici A, et al. The challenge of non-union in subtrochanteric fractures with breakage of intramedullary nail: evaluation of outcomes in surgery revision with angled blade plate and allograft bone strut. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017;43:853–61.
22.
Clawson DK. Trochanteric Fractures treated by the sliding screw plate fixation method. J Trauma. 1964;4:737–52.
23.
Pervez H, Parker MJ, Vowler S. Prediction of fixation failure after sliding hip screw fixation. Injury. 2004;35:994–8.
24.
Kuzyk PR, Zdero R, Shah S, Olsen M, Waddell JP, Schemitsch EH. Femoral head lag screw position for cephalomedullary nails: a biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26:414–21.
25.
Caruso G, Andreotti M, Pari C, Soldati F, Gildone A, Lorusso V, et al. Can TAD and CalTAD predict cut-out after extra-medullary fixation with new generation devices of proximal femoral fractures? A retrospective study. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017;8:68–72.
26.
Lopes-Coutinho L, Dias-Carvalho A, Esteves N, Sousa R. Traditional distance “tip-apex” vs. new calcar referenced “tip-apex” - which one is the best peritrochanteric osteosynthesis failure predictor? Injury. 2020;51:674–7.
27.
Yam M, Chawla A, Kwek E. Rewriting the tip apex distance for the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation. Injury. 2017;48:1843–7.
28.
Caruso G, Corradi N, Caldaria A, Bottin D, Lo Re D, Lorusso V, et al. New tip-apex distance and calcar-referenced tip-apex distance cut-offs may be the best predictors for cut-out risk after intramedullary fixation of proximal femur fractures. Sci Rep. 2022;12(357).
29.
Bruijn K, Hartog D, W T, G R. Reliability of predictors for screw cutout in intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:1266–72.
30.
Buyukdogan K, Caglar O, Isik S, Tokgozoglu M, Atilla B. Risk factors for cut-out of double lag screw fixation in proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 2017;48:414–8.
31.
Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Taglang G, Collin D, Ekholm C, Jönsson A. Critical factors in cut-out complication after Gamma Nail treatment of proximal femoral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(1).
32.
Şişman A, Avci Ö, Çepni SK, Batar S, Polat Ö. Risk factors for cut-out in intertrochanteric fractures treated with proximal femoral nail of double proximal screw design. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2022;28(101832).
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
