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
. 2021 Aug 1;35(8):e293-e297.
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002023.

A Biomechanical Comparison of Trochanteric Versus Piriformis Reconstruction Nails for Femoral Neck Fracture Prophylaxis

Alvin K Shieh  1 , Daniel A Bravin  1 , Trevor J Shelton  1 , Tanya C Garcia-Nolen  2 , Mark A Lee  1 , Jonathan G Eastman  1
Affiliations

A Biomechanical Comparison of Trochanteric Versus Piriformis Reconstruction Nails for Femoral Neck Fracture Prophylaxis

Alvin K Shieh et al. J Orthop Trauma. .

Abstract

Objectives: To compare piriformis fossa to greater trochanteric entry cephalomedullary implants in an evaluation of femoral neck load to failure when the device is used for femoral shaft fractures with prophylaxis of an associated femoral neck fracture.

Methods: Thirty fourth-generation synthetic femur models were separated into 5 groups: intact femora, entry sites alone at the piriformis fossa or greater trochanter, and piriformis fossa and greater trochanteric entry sites after the insertion of a cephalomedullary nail. Each model was mechanically loaded with a flat plate against the superior femoral head along the mechanical axis and load to failure was recorded.

Results: Mean load to failure was 5487 ± 376 N in the intact femur, 3126 ± 387 N in the piriformis fossa entry site group, 3772 ± 558 N in the piriformis entry nail, 5332 ± 292 N for the greater trochanteric entry site, and 5406 ± 801 N for the greater trochanteric nail group. Both piriformis groups were significantly lower compared with the intact group. Both greater trochanteric groups were similar to the intact group and were statistically higher than the piriformis groups.

Conclusions: A piriformis fossa entry site with or without an intramedullary implant weakens the femoral neck in load to failure testing. A greater trochanteric entry yields a load to failure equivalent to that of an intact femoral neck. Instrumentation with a greater trochanteric cephalomedullary nail is significantly stronger than a piriformis fossa cephalomedullary nail during axial loading in a composite femur model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Moon B, Lin P, Satcher R, et al. Intramedullary nailing of femoral diaphyseal metastases: is it necessary to protect the femoral neck? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1499–1502.
    1. Patton JT, Cook RE, Adams CI, et al. Late fracture of the hip after reamed intramedullary nailing of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:967–971.
    1. Collinge C, Liporace F, Koval K, et al. Cephalomedullary screws as the standard proximal locking screws for nailing femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:717–722.
    1. Faucett SC, Collinge CA, Koval KJ. Is reconstruction nailing of all femoral shaft fractures cost effective? A decision analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26:624–632.
    1. Winquist RA, Hansen ST Jr, Clawson DK. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. A report of five hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:529–539.