Management of Low‐Energy Basicervical Proximal Femoral Fractures by Proximal Femoral Nail Anti‐Rotation

• Published in: Orthopaedic surgery Vol. 11; no. 6; pp. 1173 - 1179
• Main Authors: Wang, Qi, Gu, Xiao‐hua, Li, Xi, Wu, Jian‐hong, Ju, Yu‐feng, Huang, Wei‐jie, Wang, Qiu‐gen
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Melbourne John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 01.12.2019; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Basicervical proximal femoral fractures; Bone Nails; Care and treatment; Clinical; Disability Evaluation; Elderly patients; Female; Femoral Fractures - surgery; Femoral Neck Fractures - surgery; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods; Fractures; Health aspects; Hospitals; Humans; Internal Fixators; Male; Medical records; Middle Aged; Mortality; PFNA‐II; Retrospective Studies; Rotation; Surgeons; Tip‐apex distance; Trauma; Urinary tract infections; Tip-apex distance; PFNA-II; Elderly patients; Basicervical proximal femoral fractures
• ISSN: 1757-7853; 1757-7861
• DOI: 10.1111/os.12579

Objective To evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes of proximal femoral nail anti‐rotation (PFNA‐II) devices and demonstrate the effectiveness of PFNA‐II for the treatment of basicervical fractures in elderly patients. Methods A retrospective review of all patients treated with PFNA‐II for a proximal femoral fracture between January 2013 and February 2017 at three different institutions (Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Punan Hospital and Shanghai Seventh People's Hospital) was conducted. The X‐ray films were strictly reviewed by three trauma surgeons and a professional radiology doctor. Patients over 60 years of age who met the following criteria were included: (i) sustained low‐energy trauma; (ii) a two‐part fracture; (iii) fracture line located at the base of the femoral neck and that was medial to the intertrochanteric line and exited above the lesser trochanter but was more lateral than a classic transcervical fracture. Follow‐up time should be longer than 6 months. A total of 52 patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected. The average age at diagnosis was 75.1 years (range, 63–91 years); 13 patients were men and 39 were women. The same proximal femoral nail anti‐rotation devices and the same surgical procedures were applied to all patients. Postoperative radiographic union time and modified Harris hip scores were used as major indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of surgery. Results The average follow‐up period was 22.5 months (18.5, 23.9, and 21.2 months, respectively) and radiographic unions were observed at an average of 19.6 weeks (range, 12–28 weeks). The patients were evaluated immediately after surgery, as well as 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Of the 49 patients, 38 had good reduction qualities (75.5%), 9 acceptable (18.3%), and 3 poor (6.1%). Radiographic union was confirmed in all fractures at an average of 19.6 weeks (range, 12–28 weeks). The mean Harris hip score was 84.9 (range, 65–99): excellent in 9 patients (18.36%), good in 30 (61.22%), medium in 8 (16.32%), and poor in 2 (4.08%). Slight persistent pain occurred in 3 patients, but these patients could still walk with the help of a cane. Two patients had symptoms of excessive telescoping. Eight patients experienced postoperative medical complications, mainly pneumonia and urinary tract infection. Conclusion Based on the clinical and radiological outcomes, the PFNA‐II devices provide strong rotational stability and excellent clinical prognosis, and are an appropriate treatment option for basicervical proximal femoral fracture in elderly patients.