Yaşlılarda instabil intertrokanterik femur kırıklarının tedavisinde kullanılan dizaynları farklı üç sefalomedüller çivinin fonksiyonel ve radyolojik açıdan karşılaştırılması Functional and radiological comparison of three cephalomedullary nails with different designs used in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures of elderly

YAPICI F., Üçpunar H., GÜR V., Onaç O., Alpay Y., KARAKÖSE R., ...More

Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, vol.28, no.5, pp.668-677, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 28 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.14744/tjtes.2020.80733
  • Journal Name: Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.668-677
  • Keywords: Cephalomedullary nail, elderly, fracture healing, hip fracture, intertrochanteric fracture, intramedullary nailing, post-operative complications, treatment outcome
  • Erzincan Binali Yildirim University Affiliated: Yes


BACKGROUND: The aim of this study to compare three cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) with different designs in terms of complica-tion, reoperation, implant failure, mortality rates, and functional outcomes in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures (UIFs). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with UIFs (AO/OTA type 31-A2 and 31-A3) who were treated with one of these CMNs (74 patients with Talon-PFN, 70 patients with PFN-III, and 69 patients with Intertan) between October 2014 and October 2018. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients (122 females and 91 males) with a mean age of 81.0±9.3 years have participated in this study. The mean follow-up time was 26.1±6.3 months. Malfixation was the most common complication and the most common reason of reop-eration for each type of CMN. Complication and reoperation rates, post-operative functional status, mean union times, and overall mortality rates were similar between groups. Mean operation/fluoroscopy time and mean blood loss were low in the Talon-PFN group, whereas the highest means of these parameters were in the PFN-III group. There were six (8.2%) implant failures in the Talon-PFN group and one (1.5%) in PFN-III group. No implant failure was seen in the Intertan group. The highest rate (58.6%) of anatomic reduc-tion was detected in PFN-III group. CONCLUSION: Our study results showed that each implant type had its own advantages and disadvantages in the treatment of UIFs with similar functional and reoperation outcomes. Intertan was advantageous with its absence of implant failures. Talon-PFN decreased the operation/fluoroscopy time and intraoperative blood loss but had the highest implant failure rate. There was a need for more anatomic reduction to centralize two separate parallel lag screws in the femoral neck in PFN-III group, and that costs operation/fluo-roscopy time and blood loss. Malfixation, which was the most common cause of complications and reoperations, should be avoided.