[Augmentation techniques on the proximal femur]

Retrospective evaluation of radiological and clinical outcomes after surgical treatment of proximal femoral fractures utilizing PFNA and PFNA augmented

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes after surgical treatment of proximal femoral fractures utilizing the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA), with the main focus on complications and reoperations. The secondary aim was to compare the outcomes of patients with and without cement augmentation of the cephalomedullary nails.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with an acute proximal femoral fracture consequently treated with a PFNA between January 2011 and Dezember  2018 were evaluated. Clinical and radiological data were assessed for intra- and postoperative complications, including treatment failure. In addition, intra- and postoperative radiographs were used to determine the position of the implant, and any migration, via Tip-Apex-Distance (TAD) and the caput-collum-diaphyseal angle (CCD). The accuracy of the fracture reduction was rated according to Baumgaertners criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-four consecutive patients (mean age 78.8 ± 12.0; 73.1% female) were included. The predominant OTA/AO fracture classification was 31A1 (153 cases, 58.0%). The average duration of surgery was 63.1 ± 28.0 min and showed no significant differences between PFNA and PFNA with augmentation. The implant positioning was rated as good in 222 cases (84.1%). Two hundred sixty-three patients (99.6%) showed evidence of healing within the time frame of three months postoperatively, one case of delayed union healed after secondary dynamization. During the observational period, 18 patients (6.8%) required a total of 23 additional surgeries. Overall, a lower reoperation rate was observed following the use of the augmentation option (2/86 patients (2.3%) vs. 16/178 patients (9.0%), p = 0.04). In particular, there were no cases of cut-out or cut-through among patients who underwent augmentation as part of osteosynthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall reoperation rate after surgical treatment of proximal femoral fractures utilizing the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) was 6.8%, with 23 additional surgeries performed in 18 patients. The usage of the PFNA with augmentation showed equally good implant positioning, excellent healing rates and fewer postoperative complications compared to the PFNA implant alone with a similar overall duration of surgery.

Proximal Femur Fractures - How Decisive are Reduction and the Chosen Implant?

Proximal femoral fractures are frequent and complex injuries requiring prompt and targeted care. Numerous treatment strategies have been described, some of which have been assessed and clinically implemented clinically. The aim of surgical is always the restoration of a pain-free and stable extremity. Mostly elderly patients are affected and treatment is associated with high postoperative complications and mortality rates. With increasing numbers of patients, the topic is of great medical and economic relevance. In this work, the choice of implants for the osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures - as depending on the fracture type - will be examined, as based on a review of current literature. Standard care includes cannulated screws, sliding hips screws and cephalomedullary nails. In addition, the influence of implant positioning, fracture reduction and additional measures such as cement augmentation are evaluated and discussed. Careful fracture reduction and the quality of implant positioning are paramount in order to avoid complications.

Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femur Nail Antirotation (PFNA) is associated with enhanced weight-bearing in older adults

BACKGROUND

An early postoperative mobilisation shows beneficial effects in terms of complications and mobilisation scores in older adult proximal femur fracture patients. An adequate load-bearing capacity of the operated extremity is essential for early mobilisation. We hypothesize that cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail antirotation (PFNA) leads to a higher load capacity during postoperative mobilisation compared to a non-cemented PFNA.

METHODS

Forty-nine orthogeriatric patients with pertrochanteric fractures were enrolled consecutively in a maximum care hospital in a pre-post study design (level of evidence 2). A study group of 25 patients received nailing (PFNA) with additional cement augmentation (CA group), whereas the control group of 24 patients received the same fracture fixation without cement augmentation (NCA Group). All patients participated in a gait analysis using an insole force sensor to measure the loading rate (loadsol®, Novel, Munich, Germany) on the fifth postoperative day.

RESULTS

The NCA group showed a mean age of 75,88 years (SD ± 9.62), the CA a mean age of 81,44 years (SD ± 7.77). The most common fracture type was a pertrochanteric fracture in both groups (NCA: n=20, CA: n=21) Both groups showed no differences with regards to the ASA (NCA: 2.67; CA: 2.68) score and the postoperative Parker Mobility Score (NCA: 2.67; CA: 2.68). Patients who received cement augmentation showed a significant (p=0.004) higher loading rate in the postoperative gait analysis. The CA group showed a loading rate of 58.12% (SD ± 14.50) compared to the uncemented PFNA group with 43.90% (SD ± 18.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Cement augmentation in elderly patients with a proximal femur fracture increased the early postoperative loading rate. Especially in frail patients with poor bone quality cement augmentation should therefore be considered to enhance early mobilisation with full weight bearing in order to reduce complications and improve survival.

Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation: is it safe?

BACKGROUND

Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation (PFNA; Fa. DePuy Synthes) showed good biomechanical and clinical results regarding increased stability and functional outcome [Linden et al. in J Orthop Res 24:2230-2237, 2006;Kammerlander et al. in Injury 49:1436-1444, 2018;]. Cement-associated complications are well known in orthopedic procedures like hip arthroplasty, vertebra- and kyphoplasty. This study investigates outcome and safety of augmentation of the proximal femur nail blade.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective review of the 299 patients (mean age 80 ± 13 years; 205 women and 94 men) focused on perioperative complications after augmentation which was performed with Traumacem V+ Cement (Fa. DePuy Synthes) in 152 cases. The decision for augmentation of the blade was made by the attending surgeon and based on the factors age, bone quality, and fracture pattern. Primary outcome measures were changes in blood pressure, heart rate or oxygen saturation, and the number of needed vasoactive drugs during augmentation. Secondary outcome measures where the rate of cement leakage into the joint, mechanical failure, and perioperative complications like pulmonary embolism, stroke, or heart attack.

RESULTS

In 152 augmented cases, no leakage of cement into the joint could be detected. No signs of mechanical failure like cut-out of the blade were seen after 6 weeks and 3 months. Also, augmentation did not show a higher rate of mortality or postoperative complications like stroke, heart attack, embolism, or infection. 57 of 152 augmented cases received an intraoperative intervention with vasoactive medication at the time of augmentation either prophylactically or because of a blood pressure fall. Out of the non-augmented cases, 21 of 147 needed vasoactive medication in the second half of the operation. The difference between these groups was significant (p < 0.05). In the cases without an intervention, there was a significant blood pressure fall of about 8 ± 7.4 mmHg during the augmentation (p < 0.001). Still, none of the augmented cases showed a change in heart rate or oxygen saturation.

CONCLUSION

The augmentation of the PFNA blade proved to be a safe procedure. Cement augmentation will not increase postoperative complications or mortality. The risk for leakage of cement into the joint is low and mechanical cut-out might be prevented. The decision for augmentation should be made carefully and always be declared loud and in advance to allow the anesthetist to prepare, because blood pressure changes can occur.

Osteoporotic Bone: When and How to Use Augmentation?

The number of fragility fractures is rising, and treatment is a challenge for orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Various augmentation options have been developed to prevent mechanical failure. Different composites can be used based on the fracture type, patient needs, and biomechanical needs. Indications for augmentation are not limited to osteoporotic fractures but can also be performed as a salvage procedure or in pathologic fractures. Biomechanical studies have shown advantages for augmented implants in the spine, proximal femur, and humerus. Clinical studies are preliminary but promising, showing good clinical results after augmentation with reduced mechanical failure and minimal complications.