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
Comparative Study
. 2015 Sep;7(3):291-7.
doi: 10.4055/cios.2015.7.3.291. Epub 2015 Aug 13.

Comparison of the Sliding and Femoral Head Rotation among Three Different Femoral Head Fixation Devices for Trochanteric Fractures

Nobuaki Chinzei  1 , Takafumi Hiranaka  2 , Takahiro Niikura  1 , Mitsuo Tsuji  2 , Ryosuke Kuroda  1 , Minoru Doita  3 , Masahiro Kurosaka  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of the Sliding and Femoral Head Rotation among Three Different Femoral Head Fixation Devices for Trochanteric Fractures

Nobuaki Chinzei et al. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Recently, various femoral head fixation devices (HFDs) for trochanteric fractures have become available. However, there are some cases in which femoral head rotation with excessive sliding of the HFD is observed and it is often followed by cutout. The purpose of this study is to compare the ability of the three types of HFDs to prevent femoral head rotation.

Methods: Between July 2005 and December 2009, 206 patients aged over 60 years with trochanteric fractures who had undergone surgical treatment using a short femoral nail in our institution were enrolled into the study. We used the gamma 3 nail (GMN) as the screw-type HFD in 66 cases, the gliding nail (GLN) as a non-cylindrical blade in 76 cases, and the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) as a cylindrical blade in 64 cases. The sliding length of HFDs and the occurrence of femoral head rotation were evaluated by assessing radiographs as the main outcome, and the results were compared among these devices.

Results: A comparison of the degree of sliding in the GMN group showed that femoral head rotation was observed significantly more frequently in cases with rotation. Further, it appeared that femoral head rotation occurred more frequently in comminuted fractures. However, no significant differences between the sliding lengths of the different HFDs were observed among three groups. Femoral head rotation was observed in 15 cases of GMN (22.7%), 0 case of GLN, and 5 case of PFNA (7.8%). Significant differences with regard to the occurrence of femoral head rotation were observed among the three groups. Furthermore, significant differences were also observed between GLN and PFNA with respect to the occurrence of femoral head rotation.

Conclusions: The ability to stabilize femoral head appears to be greater with blade-type materials than with screw-type materials. Furthermore, we believe that a non-cylindrical blade is preferable to a cylindrical blade for the surgical treatment of comminuted, unstable trochanteric fractures in order to prevent femoral head rotation and cut-out.

Keywords: Femur head; Hip fractures; Orthopedic fixation devices; Postoperative complication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Hypothesis of the mechanism of cut-out. We hypothesized that a lack of bony support would lead to femoral head rotation and cut-out.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Fixation devices. We used a gamma 3 nail as the screw-type head fixation device (A), gliding nail as the non-cylindrical blade (B), and proximal femoral nail antirotation as the cylindrical blade (C) in our study.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Measurement of the sliding length of head fixation device (HFD). The sliding length was calculated by subtracting the central length (AC/AB × real HFD length) measured at two weeks after surgery from the length measured immediately after surgery. AB: HFD axis, C: intersection of AB and nail axis.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Recognition of femoral head rotation. Femoral head rotation was detected by an apparent change in H': H or N':N.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Jarvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18(1 Suppl):57S–63S. - PubMed
    1. Xu YZ, Geng DC, Mao HQ, Zhu XS, Yang HL. A comparison of the proximal femoral nail antirotation device and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fracture. J Int Med Res. 2010;38(4):1266–1275. - PubMed
    1. Fritz T, Weiss C, Krieglstein C, Quentmeier A. The classic nail in the therapy of trochanteric fractures: a prospective, controlled study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119(5-6):308–314. - PubMed
    1. Curtis MJ, Jinnah RH, Wilson V, Cunningham BW. Proximal femoral fractures: a biomechanical study to compare intramedullary and extramedullary fixation. Injury. 1994;25(2):99–104. - PubMed
    1. Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK. A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(5):789–793. - PubMed

Publication types