BACKGROUND Intertrochanteric(IT)fracture is one of the most common fractures seen in an orthopaedic practice.Proximal femoral nailing(PFN)is a common modality of fixing IT femur fracture.We retrospectively studied whe...BACKGROUND Intertrochanteric(IT)fracture is one of the most common fractures seen in an orthopaedic practice.Proximal femoral nailing(PFN)is a common modality of fixing IT femur fracture.We retrospectively studied whether a PFN with two proximal lag screws can be done without distal interlocking screws in the 31-A1 and 31-A2 fracture patterns according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association(AO/OTA)guidelines for IT femur fractures.AIM To compare the outcomes of IT fractures(AO/OTA 31-A1 and 31-A2)treated by PFN with and without distal interlocking screws.METHODS We carried out a retrospective study of 140 patients in a tertiary care centre who had AO/OTA type 31-A1 and 31-A2 IT fractures.We divided the patients into two groups,in which one of the groups received distal interlocking screws(group 1)and the other group did not(group 2).The subjects were followed up for a mean period of 14 mo and assessed for radiological union time,fracture site collapse,mechanical stability of implant,and complications associated with the PFN with distal interlocking and without distal interlocking.Then,the results were compared.RESULTS PFN without distal interlocking screws has several advantages and gives better results over PFN with distal interlocking screws in the AO/OTA 31-A2 fracture pattern.However,similar results were observed in both groups with the fracture pattern AO/OTA 31-A1.In patients with fracture pattern AO/OTA 31-A2 treated by PFN without distal interlocking screws,there were minimal proximal lockrelated complications and no risk of distal interlock-related complications.The operative time,IITV radiation time and time to radiological union were reduced.These patients also had better rotational alignment of the proximal femur,and the anatomy of the proximal femur was well maintained.It was also noted that in the cases where distal interlocking was performed,there was a gradual decrease in neck shaft angle,which led to varus collapse and failure of bone-implant construct in 21.40%.CONCLUSION In fracture pattern AO/OTA 31-A2,PFN without distal interlocking had better results and less complications than PFN with distal interlocking.展开更多
AIM: To define the optimum safe angle of use for an eccentrically aligned proximal interlocking screw(PIS) for intramedullary nailing(IMN).METHODS: Thirty-six dry cadaver ulnas were split into two equal pieces sagital...AIM: To define the optimum safe angle of use for an eccentrically aligned proximal interlocking screw(PIS) for intramedullary nailing(IMN).METHODS: Thirty-six dry cadaver ulnas were split into two equal pieces sagitally. The following points were identified for each ulna: the deepest point of the incisura olecrani(A), the point where perpendicular lines from A and the ideal IMN entry point(D) are intersected(C) and a point at 3.5 mm(2 mm safety distance from articular surface + 1.5 mm radius of PIS) posterior from point A(B). We calculated the angle of screws inserted from point D through to point B in relation to D-C and B-C. In addition, an eccentrically aligned screw was inserted at a standard 20° through the anterior cortex of the ulna in each bone and the articular surface wasobserved macroscopically for any damage.RESULTS: The mean A-C distance was 9.6 mm(mean ± SD, 9.600 ± 0.763 mm), A-B distance was 3.5 mm, C-D distance was 12.500 mm(12.500 ± 1.371 mm) and the mean angle was 25.9°(25.9°± 2.0°). Lack of articular damage was confirmed macroscopically in all bones after the 20.0° eccentrically aligned screws were inserted. Intramedullary nail fixation systems have well known biological and biomechanical advantages for osteosynthesis. However, as well as these well-known advantages, IMN fixation of the ulna has some limitations. Some important limitations are related to the proximal interlocking of the ulna nail. The location of the PIS itself limits the indications for which intramedullary systems can be selected as an implant for the ulna. The new PIS design, where the PIS is aligned 20°eccentrically to the nail body, allows fixing of fractures even at the level of the olecranon without disturbing the joint. It also allows the eccentrically aligned screw to be inserted in any direction except through the proximal radio-ulnar joint. Taking into consideration our results, we now use a 20° eccentrically aligned PIS for all ulnas. In our results, the angle required to insert the PIS was less than 20° for only one bone. However, 0.7° difference corresponds to placement of the screw only 0.2 mm closer to the articular surface. As we assume 2.0 mm to be a safe distance, a placement of the screw 0.2 mm closer to the articular surface may not produce any clinical symptoms.CONCLUSION: The new PIS may give us the opportunity to interlock IMN without articular damage and confirmation by fluoroscopy if the nail is manufactured with a PIS aligned at a 20.0° fixed angle in relation to the IMN.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Intertrochanteric(IT)fracture is one of the most common fractures seen in an orthopaedic practice.Proximal femoral nailing(PFN)is a common modality of fixing IT femur fracture.We retrospectively studied whether a PFN with two proximal lag screws can be done without distal interlocking screws in the 31-A1 and 31-A2 fracture patterns according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association(AO/OTA)guidelines for IT femur fractures.AIM To compare the outcomes of IT fractures(AO/OTA 31-A1 and 31-A2)treated by PFN with and without distal interlocking screws.METHODS We carried out a retrospective study of 140 patients in a tertiary care centre who had AO/OTA type 31-A1 and 31-A2 IT fractures.We divided the patients into two groups,in which one of the groups received distal interlocking screws(group 1)and the other group did not(group 2).The subjects were followed up for a mean period of 14 mo and assessed for radiological union time,fracture site collapse,mechanical stability of implant,and complications associated with the PFN with distal interlocking and without distal interlocking.Then,the results were compared.RESULTS PFN without distal interlocking screws has several advantages and gives better results over PFN with distal interlocking screws in the AO/OTA 31-A2 fracture pattern.However,similar results were observed in both groups with the fracture pattern AO/OTA 31-A1.In patients with fracture pattern AO/OTA 31-A2 treated by PFN without distal interlocking screws,there were minimal proximal lockrelated complications and no risk of distal interlock-related complications.The operative time,IITV radiation time and time to radiological union were reduced.These patients also had better rotational alignment of the proximal femur,and the anatomy of the proximal femur was well maintained.It was also noted that in the cases where distal interlocking was performed,there was a gradual decrease in neck shaft angle,which led to varus collapse and failure of bone-implant construct in 21.40%.CONCLUSION In fracture pattern AO/OTA 31-A2,PFN without distal interlocking had better results and less complications than PFN with distal interlocking.
文摘AIM: To define the optimum safe angle of use for an eccentrically aligned proximal interlocking screw(PIS) for intramedullary nailing(IMN).METHODS: Thirty-six dry cadaver ulnas were split into two equal pieces sagitally. The following points were identified for each ulna: the deepest point of the incisura olecrani(A), the point where perpendicular lines from A and the ideal IMN entry point(D) are intersected(C) and a point at 3.5 mm(2 mm safety distance from articular surface + 1.5 mm radius of PIS) posterior from point A(B). We calculated the angle of screws inserted from point D through to point B in relation to D-C and B-C. In addition, an eccentrically aligned screw was inserted at a standard 20° through the anterior cortex of the ulna in each bone and the articular surface wasobserved macroscopically for any damage.RESULTS: The mean A-C distance was 9.6 mm(mean ± SD, 9.600 ± 0.763 mm), A-B distance was 3.5 mm, C-D distance was 12.500 mm(12.500 ± 1.371 mm) and the mean angle was 25.9°(25.9°± 2.0°). Lack of articular damage was confirmed macroscopically in all bones after the 20.0° eccentrically aligned screws were inserted. Intramedullary nail fixation systems have well known biological and biomechanical advantages for osteosynthesis. However, as well as these well-known advantages, IMN fixation of the ulna has some limitations. Some important limitations are related to the proximal interlocking of the ulna nail. The location of the PIS itself limits the indications for which intramedullary systems can be selected as an implant for the ulna. The new PIS design, where the PIS is aligned 20°eccentrically to the nail body, allows fixing of fractures even at the level of the olecranon without disturbing the joint. It also allows the eccentrically aligned screw to be inserted in any direction except through the proximal radio-ulnar joint. Taking into consideration our results, we now use a 20° eccentrically aligned PIS for all ulnas. In our results, the angle required to insert the PIS was less than 20° for only one bone. However, 0.7° difference corresponds to placement of the screw only 0.2 mm closer to the articular surface. As we assume 2.0 mm to be a safe distance, a placement of the screw 0.2 mm closer to the articular surface may not produce any clinical symptoms.CONCLUSION: The new PIS may give us the opportunity to interlock IMN without articular damage and confirmation by fluoroscopy if the nail is manufactured with a PIS aligned at a 20.0° fixed angle in relation to the IMN.
