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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Injury 2018-08, Vol.49 (8), p.1436-1444
Hauptverfasser: Kammerlander, Christian, Hem, Einar S., Klopfer, Tim, Gebhard, Florian, Sermon, An, Dietrich, Michael, Bach, Olaf, Weil, Yoram, Babst, Reto, Blauth, Michael
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