Kadir Bahadır ALEMDAROĞLU, Serkan İLTAR, Ahmet ÖZMERİÇ, Veysel Ercan DİNÇEL, Özay SUBAŞI, Gökhun ARICAN

Geriatrik kalça kırıklarında talon proksimal femoral çivileme (pfn) proksimal femoral çivi-antirotasyon (PFN-A) kadar başarılı mı?

Amaç: PFN-A kullanılarak tedavi edilen hastaların fonksiyonel ve radyolojiksonuçlarını ve radyasyon maruziyetini Talon kilitli PFN ile karşılaştırdık.Yöntem: Çalışmaya 2014-2018 tarihleri arasında proksimal femur kırığı tanısı ilePFN yapılan 60 yaşından büyük 92 hasta (43 kadın,49 erkek; ort. yaş 75.01 yıl) dahiledildi. Retrospektif çalışmamızda hastalar Talon kilitli PFN grubu (grup 1, n=46) vePFN-A grubu (grup 2, n=46) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. Hastaların demografikverileri, kırık tipleri, takip süreleri, kırık kaynama zamanları, radyografik bulguları,WOMAC skorları ile C-kollu skopi çekim sayıları değerlendirmeye alındı.Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama takip süreleri 11.05 aydı. Mortalite Grup I de %4.3,Grup II de %6.5 olarak bulundu. Kollodiafizer açı Grup I de 129.5±3.4, Grup II de126.8±3.6 (p=0.01); Singh indeksi Grup I de 4.1, Grup II de 3.62 (p=0.06); kaynama Grup I de 4.62±1.06, Grup II de 5.1±1.51(p=0.68) olarak gözlendi. Skopi çekimsüresi Grup I de 53.08 (45-89), Grup II de 97.4 (76-150) (p

Is PFN with talon locking system as successful as PFNA in geriatric hip fracture?

Aim: We compared the functional and radiological results and radiation exposure of patients treated with PFN-A and the Talon-locked PFN. Methods: The study included 92 patients (43 women, 49 men; mean age 75.01 years) who underwent PFN with the diagnosis of proximal femur fracture between 2014-2018. In our retrospective study, patients were divided into two groups: the Talon locked PFN group 1 (n= 46) and the PFN-A group 2 (n = 46). Demographic data, radiographic findings, WOMAC scores and C-arm scopy shots were evaluated. Results : The mean follow-up period was 11.05 months. Mortality was %4.3 in Group I and %6.5 in Group II. The collodiaphyseal angle was 129.5 ± 3.4 in Group I and 126.8 ± 3.6 in Group II (p = 0.01); Singh index was found to be 4.1 in Group I and 3.62 in Group II (p = 0.06); union was 4.62 ± 1.06 in Group I and 5.1 ± 1.51 in Group II (p = 0.68). The duration of fluoroscopy was 53.08 (45-89) in Group I and 97.4 (76- 150) in Group II (p

PDF

___

1. Cooper C, Cole Z, Holroyd C, Earl S, Nicholas C, Elaine M et al. Secular trends in the incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporosis international. 2011;22(5):1277. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1601-6
2. Tanner DA, Kloseck M, Crilly RG, Chesworth B, Gilliland J. Hip fracture types in men and women change differently with age. BMC geriatrics. 2010;10(1):12.doi: https://doi. org/10.1186/1471-2318-10-12
3. Bridle SH, Patel A, Bircher M, Calvert PT. Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 1991;73(2):330-334.doi: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.73B2.2005167
4. Browner D, Jupiter J, Levine A, Trafton P. Intertrochanteric femur fracture. Skelatal Trauma. 1996;2:1883-1926. doi: https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.416539
5. Larsson S, Friberg S, Hansson L-I, Trochanteric fractures. Influence of reduction and implant position on impaction and complications. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 1990(259): p. 130-139. PMID: 2208847
6. Min W-K, Kim S-Y, Kim T-K, Lee K-B, Cho M-R, Ha Y-C et al. Proximal femoral nail for the treatment of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures compared with gamma nail. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2007;63(5):1054-1060. doi: 10.1097/01. ta.0000240455.06842.a0
7. Brunner A, Jöckel JA, Babst R. The PFNA proximal femur nail in treatment of unstable proximal femur fractures-3 cases of postoperative perforation of the helical blade into the hip joint. Journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2008. 22(10): p. 731-736. doi: 10.1097/ BOT.0b013e3181893b1b
8. Schipper I, Marti R, Van der Werken C. Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation: review of literature. Injury. 2004;35(2):142-151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00287-0
9. Sharma A, Mahajan A, John B. A comparison of the clinico-radiological outcomes with proximal femoral nail (PFN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2017;11(7):RC05. PMID: 28892987
10. Konya MN, Korkusuz F, Maralcan G, Demir T, Aslan A. The use of a proximal femoral nail as a hip prosthesis: A biomechanical analysis of a newly designed implant. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018 Feb;232(2):200-206. doi: 10.1177/0954411917751561. Epub 2018 Jan 3. PMID: 29298621.
11. Park SY, Yang KH, Yoo JH, Yoon HK, Park HW. The treatment of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures with the intramedullary hip nail. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2008;65(4):852-857. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31802b9559
12. Bramlet DG, Wheeler D. Biomechanical evaluation of a new type of hip compression screw with retractable talons. Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 2003;17(9):618-624. PMID: 14574189
13. Zehir S, Şahin E, Zehir R. Comparison of clinical outcomes with three different intramedullary nailing devices in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2015;21(6):469-476. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2015.28227
14. Efstathopoulos NE, Nikolaou VS, Lazarettos JT. Intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: a comparison of two implant designs. International orthopaedics. 2007;31(1):71-76. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0128-5
15. Uzun M, Ertürer E, Oztürk I, Akman S, Seckin F, Ozcelik IB. Long-term radiographic complications following treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures with the proximal femoral nail and effects on functional results. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2009;43(6):457-463. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2009.457
16. Sadowski C, Lübbeke A, Saudan M, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P. Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. JBJS. 2002;84(3):372-381. PMID: 11886906
17. Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, Peicha G, Grechenig W, Szyszkowitz R. The proximal femoral nail (PFN)-a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica. 2003;74(1):53-58. doi: 10.1080/00016470310013662
18. Konya MN, Verim Ö. Numerical Optimization of the Position in Femoral Head of Proximal Locking Screws of Proximal Femoral Nail System; Biomechanical Study. Balkan Med J. 2017 Sep 29;34(5):425-431. Epub 2017 Apr 6. doi: 10.4274/balkanmedj.2016.0732.
19. Sommers MB, Roth C, Hall H, Benjamin CC, Larry W, James C et al. A laboratory model to evaluate cutout resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 2004;18(6):361-368. PMID: 15213501
20. Stone Jr ME, Barbaro C, Bhamidipati C, Cucuzzo J, Simon R. Elderly hip fracture patients admitted to the trauma service: does it impact patient outcome? Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2007;63(6):1348-1352. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31815b838c
21. Hayda RA, Hsu RY, DePasse JM, Gil JA. Radiation Exposure and Health Risks for Orthopaedic Surgeons. JAAOS - Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2018;26(8):268-277. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00342