Pertrokanterik Kırıklarda Proksimal Femoral Çivilemede (PFÇ) “Cut-out” Komplikasyonu Sonrası Kalça Artroplastisine Geçiş

Year 2021, Volume: 74 Issue: 1, 112 - 117, 30.04.2021

Abdullah Merter , Kerem Başarır Hakan Kocaoğlu , Mustafa Onur Karaca , Emre Anıl Özbek , Mahmut Kalem

https://doi.org/10.4274/atfm.galenos.2020.09326

Abstract

Objectives: A failed intertrochanteric fixation often leads to functional disability and pain. The most commonly observed complication is “cut-out”,which frequently requires hip arthroplasty in the subsequent period. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) after cut-out complication of proximal femoral nailing (PFN).

Materials and Methods: Forty patients who were treated with THA (20 patients) and HA (20 patients) due to cut-out complication following PFN were included in our retrospective study. Age, gender, classification of the pertrochanteric fracture (AO/OTA classification), time to arthroplasty surgery, operative time, total blood loss, and complications were reviewed. The clinical results were evaluated by the ambulatory status, Harris hip score (HHS) and visual analog scale (VAS) score at the second year follow-up.

Results: The amount of blood loss and the operative time were significantly higher in the THA group (p=0.001). Post-operative second year VAS score and HHS were similar in both groups (p=0.989 and p=0.820, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of complications rate (p=0.294).

Conclusion: Converting to hip arthroplasty is a successful choice in the treatment of cut-out complications following PFN. Both THA and HA groups had similar clinical results, with the HA group being more advantageous regarding cost, operative time, amount of blood loss, and rate of infection. However, the only valid option for those with acetabular defects during cut-out is THA.

Keywords

Cut-out , Pertrochanteric Fracture , Intertrochanteric Fracture , Proximal Femoral Nailing , Intramedullary Nailing , Hip Arthroplasty

Ethical Statement

Ethics Committee Approval: This study was approved by Human Research Ethics Committee of Ankara University (İ9- 594-20). Informed Consent: Retrospective study. Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.Authorship Contributions Surgical and Medical Practices: A.M., K.B., M.K., H.K., Concept: A.M., M.O.K., E.A.O., Design: A.M., M.O.K., E.A.O., DataCollection or Processing: A.M., Analysis or Interpretation: A.M., Literature Search: A.M., Writing: A.M. Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared bythe authors. Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study received no financial support.

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

References

• 1. Lohmann R, Frerichmann U, Stöckle U, et al. Proximale Femurfrakturen im Alter. Auswertung von Krankenkassendaten von über 23 Mio. Versicherten- -Teil 1 [Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly. Analysis of data fromhealth insurance providers on more than 23 million insured persons--part 1]. Unfallchirurg. 2007;110:603-609.
• 2. Frei HC, Hotz T, Cadosch D, et al. Central head perforation, or “cut through,”caused by the helical blade of the proximal femoral nail antirotation. JOrthop Trauma. 2012;26:102-107.
• 3. Lenich A, Mayr E, Rüter A, et al. First results with the trochanter fixation nail(TFN): a report on 120 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006;126:706-712.
• 4. Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, Van der Werken C. The AO/ASIF-proximalfemoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 1999;30:327-332.
• 5. Wu CC, Shih CH, Chen WJ, et al. Treatment of cutout of a lag screw of adynamic hip screw in an intertrochanteric fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998;117:193-196.
• 6. Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Taglang G, et al. Critical factors in cut-out complication after Gamma Nail treatment of proximal femoral fractures. BMCMusculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:1.
• 7. Haidukewych GJ, Berry DJ. Hip arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:899-904.
• 8. Baker HR. Ununited İntertrochanteric Fractures of the Femur. Clin Orthop. 1960;18:209-220.
• 9. Nordin S, Zulkifli O, Faisham WI. Mechanical failure of Dynamic Hip Screw(DHS) fixation in intertrochanteric fracture of the femur. Med J Malaysia.2001;56:12-17.
• 10. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, et al. Trochanteric gamma nail andcompression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective,comparative study in210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:229-233.
• 11. Brunner A, Büttler M, Lehmann U, et al. What is the optimal salvage procedure for cut-out after surgical fixation of trochanteric fractures withthe PFNA or TFN?: A multicentre study. Injury. 2016;47:432-438.
• 12. Chen YT, Chen WM, Lee KS, et al. Diaphyseal locking hip arthroplasty for treatment of failed fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures. JArthroplasty. 2008;23:241-246.
• 13. Mariani EM, Rand JA. Nonunion of intertrochanteric fractures of the femurfollowing open reduction and internal fixation. Results of second attempts to gain union. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;218:81-89.
• 14. Fernandez DL, Capo JT, Gonzalez-Hernandez E, et al. Nonunion of greater trochanter following total hip arthroplasty: Treated by an articulated hook plate and bone grafting. Indian J Orthop. 2017;51:273-279.
• 15. Bonnevialle P, Saragaglia D, Ehlinger M, et al. Trochanteric locking nail versus arthroplasty in unstable intertrochanteric fracture in patients aged over 75 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:95-100.
• 16. Enocson A, Mattisson L, Ottosson C, et al. Hip arthroplasty after failed fixation of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:493-498. 17. Mehlhoff T, Landon GC, Tullos HS. Total hip arthroplasty following failed internal fixation of hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;269:32-37.