Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) – A multicentre randomized controlled trial
New implant designs like the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) were developed to reduce failure rates in unstable pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Standardized implant augmentation with up to 6 mL of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement has been introduced to enhance implant anchora...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Injury 2018-08, Vol.49 (8), p.1436-1444 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1444 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 1436 |
container_title | Injury |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | Kammerlander, Christian Hem, Einar S. Klopfer, Tim Gebhard, Florian Sermon, An Dietrich, Michael Bach, Olaf Weil, Yoram Babst, Reto Blauth, Michael |
description | New implant designs like the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) were developed to reduce failure rates in unstable pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Standardized implant augmentation with up to 6 mL of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement has been introduced to enhance implant anchorage by increasing the implant-bone interface in osteoporotic bone conditions. Biomechanically, loads to failure were significantly higher with augmentation. The primary objective of this study was to compare the mobility of patients with closed unstable trochanteric fractures treated by PFNA either with or without cement augmentation.
A prospective multicentre, randomized, patient-blinded trial was conducted with ambulatory patients aged 75 or older who sustained a closed, unstable trochanteric fracture. Surgical fixation had to be performed within 72 h after admission. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline, during surgery, 3 to 14 days after surgery, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. To evaluate the primary objective, patients’ walking speed was assessed by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Secondary objectives included the analysis of implant migration assessed on radiographs, quality of life measured by the Barthel Index, mobility measured by the Parker Mobility Score, and complications.
Of 253 randomized patients, 223 patients were eligible: 105 patients were allocated to the PFNA Augmentation group and 118 to PFNA group. At 3 to 14 days after surgery, there was no statistical significant difference in mean walking speed between the treatment groups. For the secondary objectives, also no statistical significant differences were found. However, no patient in the PFNA Augmentation group had a reoperation due to mechanical failure or symptomatic implant migration compared to 6 patients in the PFNA group.
Augmentation of the PFNA blade did not improve patients’ walking ability compared to the use of a non-augmented PFNA but might have the potential to prevent reoperations by strengthening the osteosynthesis construct. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2035241680</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0020138318302018</els_id><sourcerecordid>2035241680</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3733c4cb48b4069f7d8c333b2e764af31fc51432a91cebf8ff81dee6392c50603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9u1DAQhy0EokvhDRDysT0kHf_ZxLkgrVZdQKpKD3C2HGcMXjlxsRNEOfEOvCFPgle7cOzpNxp9M6P5CHnNoGbAmqt97af9kh5qDkzVIGvg_AlZMdV2FfCmfUpWABwqJpQ4Iy9y3gOwFoR4Ts5413K57mBF0hZHnGZqli-HNLOPE42Ozl-R3qX4w48m0B2OMZW8NT7QzTT7FE_kxd3udnNJ__z6TTd0XMLsbdmSkCYzDXH0P3GgNpZODKGUc_ImvCTPnAkZX53ynHzeXX_avq9uPr77sN3cVFaCmivRCmGl7aXqJTSdawdlhRA9x7aRxgnm7JpJwU3HLPZOOafYgNiIjts1NCDOycVx732K3xbMsx59thiCmTAuWXMQay5Zow6oPKI2xZwTOn2fyufpQTPQB9t6r4-29cG2BqmL7TL25nRh6Ucc_g_901uAt0cAy5_fPSadrcfJ4uAT2lkP0T9-4S9XNZRa</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2035241680</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) – A multicentre randomized controlled trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Kammerlander, Christian ; Hem, Einar S. ; Klopfer, Tim ; Gebhard, Florian ; Sermon, An ; Dietrich, Michael ; Bach, Olaf ; Weil, Yoram ; Babst, Reto ; Blauth, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Kammerlander, Christian ; Hem, Einar S. ; Klopfer, Tim ; Gebhard, Florian ; Sermon, An ; Dietrich, Michael ; Bach, Olaf ; Weil, Yoram ; Babst, Reto ; Blauth, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>New implant designs like the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) were developed to reduce failure rates in unstable pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Standardized implant augmentation with up to 6 mL of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement has been introduced to enhance implant anchorage by increasing the implant-bone interface in osteoporotic bone conditions. Biomechanically, loads to failure were significantly higher with augmentation. The primary objective of this study was to compare the mobility of patients with closed unstable trochanteric fractures treated by PFNA either with or without cement augmentation.
A prospective multicentre, randomized, patient-blinded trial was conducted with ambulatory patients aged 75 or older who sustained a closed, unstable trochanteric fracture. Surgical fixation had to be performed within 72 h after admission. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline, during surgery, 3 to 14 days after surgery, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. To evaluate the primary objective, patients’ walking speed was assessed by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Secondary objectives included the analysis of implant migration assessed on radiographs, quality of life measured by the Barthel Index, mobility measured by the Parker Mobility Score, and complications.
Of 253 randomized patients, 223 patients were eligible: 105 patients were allocated to the PFNA Augmentation group and 118 to PFNA group. At 3 to 14 days after surgery, there was no statistical significant difference in mean walking speed between the treatment groups. For the secondary objectives, also no statistical significant differences were found. However, no patient in the PFNA Augmentation group had a reoperation due to mechanical failure or symptomatic implant migration compared to 6 patients in the PFNA group.
Augmentation of the PFNA blade did not improve patients’ walking ability compared to the use of a non-augmented PFNA but might have the potential to prevent reoperations by strengthening the osteosynthesis construct.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-1383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0267</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29724590</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Augmentation ; Bone Cements - therapeutic use ; Bone Nails ; Catastrophic failure ; Cementoplasty - methods ; Female ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods ; Hip Fractures - physiopathology ; Hip Fractures - surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Multicentre randomized trial ; PFNA ; Polymethyl Methacrylate - therapeutic use ; Prospective Studies ; Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Treatment Outcome ; Trochanteric hip fractures ; Unstable</subject><ispartof>Injury, 2018-08, Vol.49 (8), p.1436-1444</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3733c4cb48b4069f7d8c333b2e764af31fc51432a91cebf8ff81dee6392c50603</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3733c4cb48b4069f7d8c333b2e764af31fc51432a91cebf8ff81dee6392c50603</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6461-0663</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138318302018$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29724590$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kammerlander, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hem, Einar S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klopfer, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebhard, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sermon, An</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietrich, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bach, Olaf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weil, Yoram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babst, Reto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blauth, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) – A multicentre randomized controlled trial</title><title>Injury</title><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><description>New implant designs like the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) were developed to reduce failure rates in unstable pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Standardized implant augmentation with up to 6 mL of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement has been introduced to enhance implant anchorage by increasing the implant-bone interface in osteoporotic bone conditions. Biomechanically, loads to failure were significantly higher with augmentation. The primary objective of this study was to compare the mobility of patients with closed unstable trochanteric fractures treated by PFNA either with or without cement augmentation.
A prospective multicentre, randomized, patient-blinded trial was conducted with ambulatory patients aged 75 or older who sustained a closed, unstable trochanteric fracture. Surgical fixation had to be performed within 72 h after admission. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline, during surgery, 3 to 14 days after surgery, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. To evaluate the primary objective, patients’ walking speed was assessed by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Secondary objectives included the analysis of implant migration assessed on radiographs, quality of life measured by the Barthel Index, mobility measured by the Parker Mobility Score, and complications.
Of 253 randomized patients, 223 patients were eligible: 105 patients were allocated to the PFNA Augmentation group and 118 to PFNA group. At 3 to 14 days after surgery, there was no statistical significant difference in mean walking speed between the treatment groups. For the secondary objectives, also no statistical significant differences were found. However, no patient in the PFNA Augmentation group had a reoperation due to mechanical failure or symptomatic implant migration compared to 6 patients in the PFNA group.
Augmentation of the PFNA blade did not improve patients’ walking ability compared to the use of a non-augmented PFNA but might have the potential to prevent reoperations by strengthening the osteosynthesis construct.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Augmentation</subject><subject>Bone Cements - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Bone Nails</subject><subject>Catastrophic failure</subject><subject>Cementoplasty - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</subject><subject>Hip Fractures - physiopathology</subject><subject>Hip Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Multicentre randomized trial</subject><subject>PFNA</subject><subject>Polymethyl Methacrylate - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Trochanteric hip fractures</subject><subject>Unstable</subject><issn>0020-1383</issn><issn>1879-0267</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM9u1DAQhy0EokvhDRDysT0kHf_ZxLkgrVZdQKpKD3C2HGcMXjlxsRNEOfEOvCFPgle7cOzpNxp9M6P5CHnNoGbAmqt97af9kh5qDkzVIGvg_AlZMdV2FfCmfUpWABwqJpQ4Iy9y3gOwFoR4Ts5413K57mBF0hZHnGZqli-HNLOPE42Ozl-R3qX4w48m0B2OMZW8NT7QzTT7FE_kxd3udnNJ__z6TTd0XMLsbdmSkCYzDXH0P3GgNpZODKGUc_ImvCTPnAkZX53ynHzeXX_avq9uPr77sN3cVFaCmivRCmGl7aXqJTSdawdlhRA9x7aRxgnm7JpJwU3HLPZOOafYgNiIjts1NCDOycVx732K3xbMsx59thiCmTAuWXMQay5Zow6oPKI2xZwTOn2fyufpQTPQB9t6r4-29cG2BqmL7TL25nRh6Ucc_g_901uAt0cAy5_fPSadrcfJ4uAT2lkP0T9-4S9XNZRa</recordid><startdate>201808</startdate><enddate>201808</enddate><creator>Kammerlander, Christian</creator><creator>Hem, Einar S.</creator><creator>Klopfer, Tim</creator><creator>Gebhard, Florian</creator><creator>Sermon, An</creator><creator>Dietrich, Michael</creator><creator>Bach, Olaf</creator><creator>Weil, Yoram</creator><creator>Babst, Reto</creator><creator>Blauth, Michael</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6461-0663</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201808</creationdate><title>Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) – A multicentre randomized controlled trial</title><author>Kammerlander, Christian ; Hem, Einar S. ; Klopfer, Tim ; Gebhard, Florian ; Sermon, An ; Dietrich, Michael ; Bach, Olaf ; Weil, Yoram ; Babst, Reto ; Blauth, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-3733c4cb48b4069f7d8c333b2e764af31fc51432a91cebf8ff81dee6392c50603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Augmentation</topic><topic>Bone Cements - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Bone Nails</topic><topic>Catastrophic failure</topic><topic>Cementoplasty - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</topic><topic>Hip Fractures - physiopathology</topic><topic>Hip Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Multicentre randomized trial</topic><topic>PFNA</topic><topic>Polymethyl Methacrylate - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Trochanteric hip fractures</topic><topic>Unstable</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kammerlander, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hem, Einar S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klopfer, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebhard, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sermon, An</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietrich, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bach, Olaf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weil, Yoram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babst, Reto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blauth, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Injury</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kammerlander, Christian</au><au>Hem, Einar S.</au><au>Klopfer, Tim</au><au>Gebhard, Florian</au><au>Sermon, An</au><au>Dietrich, Michael</au><au>Bach, Olaf</au><au>Weil, Yoram</au><au>Babst, Reto</au><au>Blauth, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) – A multicentre randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Injury</jtitle><addtitle>Injury</addtitle><date>2018-08</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1436</spage><epage>1444</epage><pages>1436-1444</pages><issn>0020-1383</issn><eissn>1879-0267</eissn><abstract>New implant designs like the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) were developed to reduce failure rates in unstable pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Standardized implant augmentation with up to 6 mL of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement has been introduced to enhance implant anchorage by increasing the implant-bone interface in osteoporotic bone conditions. Biomechanically, loads to failure were significantly higher with augmentation. The primary objective of this study was to compare the mobility of patients with closed unstable trochanteric fractures treated by PFNA either with or without cement augmentation.
A prospective multicentre, randomized, patient-blinded trial was conducted with ambulatory patients aged 75 or older who sustained a closed, unstable trochanteric fracture. Surgical fixation had to be performed within 72 h after admission. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline, during surgery, 3 to 14 days after surgery, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. To evaluate the primary objective, patients’ walking speed was assessed by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Secondary objectives included the analysis of implant migration assessed on radiographs, quality of life measured by the Barthel Index, mobility measured by the Parker Mobility Score, and complications.
Of 253 randomized patients, 223 patients were eligible: 105 patients were allocated to the PFNA Augmentation group and 118 to PFNA group. At 3 to 14 days after surgery, there was no statistical significant difference in mean walking speed between the treatment groups. For the secondary objectives, also no statistical significant differences were found. However, no patient in the PFNA Augmentation group had a reoperation due to mechanical failure or symptomatic implant migration compared to 6 patients in the PFNA group.
Augmentation of the PFNA blade did not improve patients’ walking ability compared to the use of a non-augmented PFNA but might have the potential to prevent reoperations by strengthening the osteosynthesis construct.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>29724590</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6461-0663</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0020-1383 |
ispartof | Injury, 2018-08, Vol.49 (8), p.1436-1444 |
issn | 0020-1383 1879-0267 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2035241680 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Aged Aged, 80 and over Augmentation Bone Cements - therapeutic use Bone Nails Catastrophic failure Cementoplasty - methods Female Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods Hip Fractures - physiopathology Hip Fractures - surgery Humans Male Multicentre randomized trial PFNA Polymethyl Methacrylate - therapeutic use Prospective Studies Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation Range of Motion, Articular - physiology Treatment Outcome Trochanteric hip fractures Unstable |
title | Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) – A multicentre randomized controlled trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T18%3A59%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cement%20augmentation%20of%20the%20Proximal%20Femoral%20Nail%20Antirotation%20(PFNA)%20%E2%80%93%20A%20multicentre%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Injury&rft.au=Kammerlander,%20Christian&rft.date=2018-08&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1436&rft.epage=1444&rft.pages=1436-1444&rft.issn=0020-1383&rft.eissn=1879-0267&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2035241680%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2035241680&rft_id=info:pmid/29724590&rft_els_id=S0020138318302018&rfr_iscdi=true |