Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2013 Oct 17:8:35.
doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-8-35.

Should the tip-apex distance (TAD) rule be modified for the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA)? A retrospective study

Andrej N Nikoloski  1 , Anthony L Osbrough, Piers J Yates
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Should the tip-apex distance (TAD) rule be modified for the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA)? A retrospective study

Andrej N Nikoloski et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background: Unstable proximal femoral fractures are common and challenging for the orthopaedic surgeon. Often, these are treated with intramedullary nails. The most common mode of failure of any device to treat these fractures is cut-out. The Synthes proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) is unique because it is the only proximal femoral intramedullary nail which employs a helical blade in lieu of a lag screw. The optimal tip-apex distance is 25 mm or less for a dynamic hip screw. The optimal blade tip placement is not known for the PFNA.

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine if the traditional tip-apex distance rule (<25 mm) applies to the PFNA.

Method: A retrospective study of all proximal femoral fractures treated with the PFNA in Western Australian public teaching hospitals between August 2006 and October 2007 was performed. Cases were identified from company and theatre implant use records. Patient demographic data was obtained from hospital records. Fractures were classified according to Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation. Fracture reduction, distal locking type and blade position within the head (tip-apex distance and Cleveland zone) were recorded from the intraoperative and immediate postoperative radiographs. Postoperative radiographs obtained in the routine treatment of patients were studied for review looking primarily for cut-out. Clinical outcomes were measured with the Oxford hip score.

Results: One hundred eighty-eight PFNAs were implanted during the study period, with 178 cases included in this study. Ninety-seven patients could be followed up clinically. There were 18 surgical implant-related failures (19%). The single most common mode of failure was cut-out in six cases (6.2%). Three cut-outs (two medial perforation and one varus collapse) occurred with tip-apex distance (TAD) less than 20 mm. There was no cut-out in cases where the TAD was from 20-30 mm. There were three implant-related failures (nail fracture, missed nail and loose locking screw), four implant-related femoral fractures, two non-unions, two delayed unions and one loss of reduction.

Conclusion: The PFNA is a suitable fixation device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. There were still a relatively large number of cut-outs, and the tip-apex distance in the failures showed a bimodal distribution, not like previously demonstrated with dynamic hip screw. We propose that the helical blade behaves differently to a screw, and placement too close to the subchondral bone may lead to penetration through the head.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
AO/ASIF classification.
Figure 2
Figure 2
TAD distribution.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cleveland index distribution (a) and Cleveland zones (b).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cut-out with TAD 42 mm. Blade has migrated superiorly.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Fluoroscopy image of PFNA with TAD of 9 mm. Blade has migrated axially.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Distribution of TAD in cut-out and all cases.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Cochrane Library Database System Rev. 2010;9:CD000093. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub5. - PubMed
    1. Klinger HM, Baums MH, Eckert M, Neugebauer R. A comparative study of unstable per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with dynamic hip screw (DHS) and trochanteric butt-press plate vs. proximal femoral nail (PFN) Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie. 2005;130(4):301–306. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-836784. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Windolf J, Hollander DA, Hakimi M. Pitfalls and complications in the use of the proximal femoral nail. Langenbecks Archiv Surg. 2005;390:59–65. doi: 10.1007/s00423-004-0466-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sommers MB, Roth C, Hall H, Kam BC, Ehmke LW, Krieg JC, Madey SM, Bottlang M. A laboratory model to evaluate cutout resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:361–368. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200407000-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Simmermacher RKJ, Ljungqvist J, Bail H, Hockertz T, Vochteloo AJ, Ochs U, Werken C. AO - PFNA studygroup. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury. 2008;39(8):932–939. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.02.005. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types