Display options
Cite
Shin WC, Seo JD, Lee SM, et al. Radiographic Outcomes of Osteosynthesis Using Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) System in Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: Has PFNA II Solved All the Problems?. Hip Pelvis. 2017;29(2):104-112doi: 10.5371/hp.2017.29.2.104.
Shin, W. C., Seo, J. D., Lee, S. M., Moon, N. H., Lee, J. S., & Suh, K. T. (2017). Radiographic Outcomes of Osteosynthesis Using Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) System in Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: Has PFNA II Solved All the Problems?. Hip & pelvis, 29(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2017.29.2.104
Shin, Won Chul, et al. "Radiographic Outcomes of Osteosynthesis Using Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) System in Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: Has PFNA II Solved All the Problems?." Hip & pelvis vol. 29,2 (2017): 104-112. doi: https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2017.29.2.104
Shin WC, Seo JD, Lee SM, Moon NH, Lee JS, Suh KT. Radiographic Outcomes of Osteosynthesis Using Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) System in Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: Has PFNA II Solved All the Problems?. Hip Pelvis. 2017 Jun;29(2):104-112. doi: 10.5371/hp.2017.29.2.104. Epub 2017 Jun 02. PMID: 28611961; PMCID: PMC5465391.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Hip Pelvis. 2017 Jun;29(2):104-112. doi: 10.5371/hp.2017.29.2.104. Epub 2017 Jun 02.

Radiographic Outcomes of Osteosynthesis Using Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) System in Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: Has PFNA II Solved All the Problems?.

Hip & pelvis

Won Chul Shin, Jung Dong Seo, Sang Min Lee, Nam Hoon Moon, Jung Sub Lee, Kuen Tak Suh

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea.
  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea.

PMID: 28611961 PMCID: PMC5465391 DOI: 10.5371/hp.2017.29.2.104

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the geometric discrepancies between the proximal femur in Koreans and two types of proximal femoral nail using plain radiographs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients (38 treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation [PFNA], 62 PFNA II) with intertrochanteric fracture were retrospectively identified. The minimum follow up period was 32 months. The geometric analysis of the proximal femur was performed using preoperative true hip antero-posterior radiographs of the unaffected side, and the data were compared with the PFNA and PFNA II dimensions. Postoperative assessments were performed using postoperative radiographs for the proximal protruding length of nail tip, quality of reduction, implant position and the presence of lateral cortical impingement.

RESULTS: The geometric dimensions of the proximal femur were different between the two proximal femoral nail types. No impingement was detected in patients treated with PFNA II, whereas 13 cases of lateral impingement were observed in patients treated with PFNA. A significant association was observed between the short proximal femur and the presence of lateral cortical impingement (

CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the flat lateral surface of PFNA II can avoid lateral cortical impingement, which provide better fixation for intertrochanteric fracture. However, there was still a problem associated with longer proximal end of PFNA II compared with the proximal femoral length in Korean.

Keywords: Intertrochanteric fracture; Korean; Lateral cortical impingement; Proximal femoral nail antirotation

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors declare that there is no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

References

  1. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003 Feb;74(1):53-8 - PubMed
  2. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Apr;471(4):1393-4 - PubMed
  3. Injury. 2006 Oct;37(10 ):984-9 - PubMed
  4. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008 Dec;128(12 ):1443-6 - PubMed
  5. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Mar;89(3):470-5 - PubMed
  6. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959 Dec;41-A:1399-408 - PubMed
  7. Injury. 2010 Aug;41(8):857-61 - PubMed
  8. Injury. 2010 Mar;41(3):279-84 - PubMed
  9. Bone Joint J. 2013 Aug;95-B(8):1134-8 - PubMed
  10. Osteoporos Int. 1992 Nov;2(6):285-9 - PubMed
  11. J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Nov;26(11):638-42 - PubMed
  12. J Int Med Res. 2010 Jul-Aug;38(4):1266-75 - PubMed
  13. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Jan;(406):116-22 - PubMed
  14. Hip Int. 2011 Sep-Oct;21(5):531-6 - PubMed
  15. J Trauma. 2011 Jul;71(1):169-74 - PubMed
  16. J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Jul;18(6):361-8 - PubMed
  17. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Nov;470(11):3067-76 - PubMed
  18. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Aug;84-A(8):1488 - PubMed

Publication Types