Cargando…

Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw

BACKGROUND: Early fixation and rehabilitation is the gold standard treatment for intertrochanteric femur fractures. Cement augmentation through perforated head elements has been developed to avoid postoperative complications such as cut-out or cut-through. The purpose of this study was to compare tw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mitsuzawa, Sadaki, Nakamata, Takeharu, Mitamura, Shogo, Yasuda, Tadashi, Matsuda, Shuichi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10316549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37400808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06671-9
_version_ 1785067733196472320
author Mitsuzawa, Sadaki
Nakamata, Takeharu
Mitamura, Shogo
Yasuda, Tadashi
Matsuda, Shuichi
author_facet Mitsuzawa, Sadaki
Nakamata, Takeharu
Mitamura, Shogo
Yasuda, Tadashi
Matsuda, Shuichi
author_sort Mitsuzawa, Sadaki
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Early fixation and rehabilitation is the gold standard treatment for intertrochanteric femur fractures. Cement augmentation through perforated head elements has been developed to avoid postoperative complications such as cut-out or cut-through. The purpose of this study was to compare two head elements in terms of cement distribution using computed tomography (CT) and to examine their initial fixation and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Elderly patients who had intertrochanteric fractures were treated with a trochanteric fixation nail advanced (TFNA) helical blade (Blade group) or a TFNA lag screw (Screw group). In both groups, 4.2 mL of cement was injected under an image intensifier (1.8 mL of cement was directed cranially and 0.8 mL each caudally, anteriorly, and posteriorly). Patient demographics and clinical outcome were investigated post-operatively. Cement distribution from the center of the head element was evaluated with CT. Maximum penetration depth (MPD) were measured in the coronal and sagittal planes. On each axial plane, the cross-sectional areas in the cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior directions were calculated. The sum of cross-sectional areas (successive 36 slices) was defined as the volume of the head element. RESULTS: The Blade group included 14 patients, and the Screw group included 15 patients. In the Blade group, MPD in the anterior and caudal direction was significantly greater than that in the posterior direction (p < 0.01). In the Screw group, volume in the cranial and posterior direction was significantly greater than that in the Blade group (p = 0.03). Subsequently, the total volume in the Screw group was significantly larger than that in the Blade group (p < 0.01). No significant correlation was detected between bone mineral density, T score, young adult mean, and total cement volume. Change in radiographic parameters and clinical outcome such as Parker score and visual analog scale were similar in both groups. No patients suffered from cut-out / cut through or non-union. CONCLUSIONS: The position of cement distribution through the lag screw is different from that through the helical blade, and the total volume of the head element is significantly larger in the lag screw. Both groups had similarly effective results in terms of mechanical stability after surgery, postoperative pain and early phase of rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45341843, 24/12/2022, Retrospectively registered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10316549
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103165492023-07-04 Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw Mitsuzawa, Sadaki Nakamata, Takeharu Mitamura, Shogo Yasuda, Tadashi Matsuda, Shuichi BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Early fixation and rehabilitation is the gold standard treatment for intertrochanteric femur fractures. Cement augmentation through perforated head elements has been developed to avoid postoperative complications such as cut-out or cut-through. The purpose of this study was to compare two head elements in terms of cement distribution using computed tomography (CT) and to examine their initial fixation and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Elderly patients who had intertrochanteric fractures were treated with a trochanteric fixation nail advanced (TFNA) helical blade (Blade group) or a TFNA lag screw (Screw group). In both groups, 4.2 mL of cement was injected under an image intensifier (1.8 mL of cement was directed cranially and 0.8 mL each caudally, anteriorly, and posteriorly). Patient demographics and clinical outcome were investigated post-operatively. Cement distribution from the center of the head element was evaluated with CT. Maximum penetration depth (MPD) were measured in the coronal and sagittal planes. On each axial plane, the cross-sectional areas in the cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior directions were calculated. The sum of cross-sectional areas (successive 36 slices) was defined as the volume of the head element. RESULTS: The Blade group included 14 patients, and the Screw group included 15 patients. In the Blade group, MPD in the anterior and caudal direction was significantly greater than that in the posterior direction (p < 0.01). In the Screw group, volume in the cranial and posterior direction was significantly greater than that in the Blade group (p = 0.03). Subsequently, the total volume in the Screw group was significantly larger than that in the Blade group (p < 0.01). No significant correlation was detected between bone mineral density, T score, young adult mean, and total cement volume. Change in radiographic parameters and clinical outcome such as Parker score and visual analog scale were similar in both groups. No patients suffered from cut-out / cut through or non-union. CONCLUSIONS: The position of cement distribution through the lag screw is different from that through the helical blade, and the total volume of the head element is significantly larger in the lag screw. Both groups had similarly effective results in terms of mechanical stability after surgery, postoperative pain and early phase of rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45341843, 24/12/2022, Retrospectively registered. BioMed Central 2023-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10316549/ /pubmed/37400808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06671-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mitsuzawa, Sadaki
Nakamata, Takeharu
Mitamura, Shogo
Yasuda, Tadashi
Matsuda, Shuichi
Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw
title Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw
title_full Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw
title_fullStr Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw
title_full_unstemmed Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw
title_short Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw
title_sort which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of tfna? helical blade versus lag screw
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10316549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37400808
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06671-9
work_keys_str_mv AT mitsuzawasadaki whichheadelementismoreeffectiveforcementaugmentationoftfnahelicalbladeversuslagscrew
AT nakamatatakeharu whichheadelementismoreeffectiveforcementaugmentationoftfnahelicalbladeversuslagscrew
AT mitamurashogo whichheadelementismoreeffectiveforcementaugmentationoftfnahelicalbladeversuslagscrew
AT yasudatadashi whichheadelementismoreeffectiveforcementaugmentationoftfnahelicalbladeversuslagscrew
AT matsudashuichi whichheadelementismoreeffectiveforcementaugmentationoftfnahelicalbladeversuslagscrew