A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?

OZER, Alaettin; DURUSOY, SERHAT; Öner, Kerim

doi:10.5606/ehc.2020.75113

A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?

Kerim ÖNER, (Yozgat Bozok Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalı, Yozgat, Türkiye)

Serhat DURUSOY, (Yozgat Bozok Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalı, Yozgat, Türkiye)

Alaattin ÖZER (Yozgat Bozok Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Makine Mühendisliği Bölümü, Yozgat, Türkiye)

Joint diseases and related surgery

1 1

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 31 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 426 - 431 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113 İndeks Tarihi: 03-12-2021

A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?

Öz:

Objectives: This study aims to compare the mechanical features of the existing proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) system and the new PFNA system that we designed using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis. Materials and methods: This experimental study was conducted between 2019 and 2020. We constructed two femur models with Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) type A1 fractures using 3D computed tomography scans. The new and standard PFNA designs were inserted into the femur models and subsequently transferred to the program. We investigated the distribution of stress on the tip of the lag screw, the calcar region, lag screw-nail junction, and the additional screw inserted through the greater trochanter (only present in the new PFNA design) using 3D finite element analysis. Results: When the von Mises stress distributions in our models were examined, the maximum stress at the lag screw-nail junction was 18 mpa in the new design PFNA, while it was 20 mpa in the classic PFNA model. The maximum stress at the junction of the additional screw that had greater trochanter inlet with the nail was found as 42.5 mpa. The maximum stress on the calcar region was found to be 10 mpa at the new design PFNA, while it was 13 mpa with 30% increase in the classic PFNA. The stress on the tip of the lag screw was found to be 49 mpa in the classic PFNA design, while in the new design PFNA it was found as 28 mpa with a decrease of more than 40%. Conclusion: As per our findings, the new PFNA design leads to reduced stress on the lag screw-nail junction, the calcar region, and the tip of the lag screw.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Bozkurt HH, Tokgöz MA, Yapar A, Atik OŞ. What is the importance of canal-to-diaphysis ratio on osteoporosisrelated hip fractures? Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2019;30:296-300.
2. Siddiqui YS, Khan AQ, Asif N, Khan MJ, Sherwani MKA. Modes of failure of proximal femoral nail (PFN) in unstable trochanteric fractures. MOJ Orthop Rheumatol 2019;11:7-16.
3. Sidhu AS, Singh AP, Singh AP, Singh S. Total hip replacement as primary treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Int Orthop 2010;34:789-92.
4. Hassankhani EG, Omidi-Kashani F, Hajitaghi H, Hassankhani GG. How to Treat the Complex Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures in Elderly Patients? DHS or Arthroplasty. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2014;2:174-9.
5. Kamboj P, Sharma PK, Jesadia B, Arora S, Siwach RC. A comparative prospective study of osteosynthesis in intertrochanteric fractures, using dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral nailing (PFN). International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences 2019;5:954-60.
6. Sharma A, Mahajan A, John B. A Comparison of the Clinico-Radiological Outcomes with Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) and Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) in Fixation of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:RC05-RC09.
7. Mallya S, Kamath SU, Madegowda A, Krishnamurthy SL, Jain MK, Holla R. Comparison of radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures treated using PFN and PFNA-2 in patients with osteoporosis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019;29:1035-42.
8. Wang J, Ma JX, Lu B, Bai HH, Wang Y, Ma XL. Comparative finite element analysis of three implants fixing stable and unstable subtrochanteric femoral fractures: Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA), Proximal Femoral Locking Plate (PFLP), and Reverse Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2020;106:95-101.
9. Andruszkow H, Frink M, Frömke C, Matityahu A, Zeckey C, Mommsen P, et al. Tip apex distance, hip screw placement, and neck shaft angle as potential risk factors for cut-out failure of hip screws after surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 2012;36:2347-54.
10. Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y, Guangming Z, Xianbin W. Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury 2010;41:1234-8.
11. Strauss E, Frank J, Lee J, Kummer FJ, Tejwani N. Helical blade versus sliding hip screw for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. Injury 2006;37:984-9.
12. Kochai A, Uysal M, Ozalay M, Cinar BM, Battal V, Avci MC. Comparision of PFN and INTERTAN nail for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture in mobile patients. Int J Clin Exp Med 2019;12:5468-74.
13. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 2007;21(10 Suppl):S1-133.
14. Liang C, Peng R, Jiang N, Xie G, Wang L, Yu B. Intertrochanteric fracture: Association between the coronal position of the lag screw and stress distribution. Asian J Surg 2018;41:241-9.
15. Li J, Yin P, Zhang L, Chen H, Tang P. Medial anatomical buttress plate in treating displaced femoral neck fracture a finite element analysis. Injury 2019;50:1895-900.
16. Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M, Mayr E, Stöckle U, Füchtmeier B. Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip--Blade vs screw. Injury 2010;41:1292-6.
17. Kashigar A, Vincent A, Gunton MJ, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk PR. Predictors of failure for cephalomedullary nailing of proximal femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 2014;96:1029-34.
18. Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Taglang G, Collin D, Ekholm C, Jönsson A. Critical factors in cut-out complication after Gamma Nail treatment of proximal femoral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:1.
19. Pervez H, Parker MJ, Vowler S. Prediction of fixation failure after sliding hip screw fixation. Injury 2004;35:994-8.
20. Parker MJ. Valgus reduction of trochanteric fractures. Injury 1993;24:313-6.
21. Caruso G, Bonomo M, Valpiani G, Salvatori G, Gildone A, Lorusso V, et al. A six-year retrospective analysis of cut-out risk predictors in cephalomedullary nailing for pertrochanteric fractures: Can the tip-apex distance (TAD) still be considered the best parameter? Bone Joint Res 2017;6:481-8.
22. Furui A, Terada N, Mito K. Mechanical simulation study of postoperative displacement of trochanteric fractures using the finite element method. J Orthop Surg Res 2018;13:300.

APA	Öner K, DURUSOY S, OZER A (2020). A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. , 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
Chicago	Öner Kerim,DURUSOY SERHAT,OZER Alaettin A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. (2020): 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
MLA	Öner Kerim,DURUSOY SERHAT,OZER Alaettin A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. , 2020, ss.426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
AMA	Öner K,DURUSOY S,OZER A A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. . 2020; 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
Vancouver	Öner K,DURUSOY S,OZER A A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. . 2020; 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
IEEE	Öner K,DURUSOY S,OZER A "A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?." , ss.426 - 431, 2020. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
ISNAD	Öner, Kerim vd. "A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?". (2020), 426-431. https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2020.75113

APA	Öner K, DURUSOY S, OZER A (2020). A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. Joint diseases and related surgery, 31(3), 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
Chicago	Öner Kerim,DURUSOY SERHAT,OZER Alaettin A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. Joint diseases and related surgery 31, no.3 (2020): 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
MLA	Öner Kerim,DURUSOY SERHAT,OZER Alaettin A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. Joint diseases and related surgery, vol.31, no.3, 2020, ss.426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
AMA	Öner K,DURUSOY S,OZER A A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. Joint diseases and related surgery. 2020; 31(3): 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
Vancouver	Öner K,DURUSOY S,OZER A A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?. Joint diseases and related surgery. 2020; 31(3): 426 - 431. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
IEEE	Öner K,DURUSOY S,OZER A "A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?." Joint diseases and related surgery, 31, ss.426 - 431, 2020. 10.5606/ehc.2020.75113
ISNAD	Öner, Kerim vd. "A new proximal femoral nail antirotation design: Is it effective in preventing varus collapse and cut-out?". Joint diseases and related surgery 31/3 (2020), 426-431. https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2020.75113