The treatment for trochanteric femoral fractures is still challenging. Since 2005, we are using 2 new implants: Gamma3™ nail and the PFN-A™.

All patients with a fracture of the trochanteric area were included in an observational study during 3 years.

Objectives were radiographics and clinics (complications) comparaison of these 2 new devices.

We included 426 patients (236 Gamma3™ nails, 190 PFN-A™). We faced the epidemiological data, per and post-operative complications. The tip-apex distance and the position of the cephalic implant were studied.

The 2 implants were well positionned in more than 80%, with no statistic diffferencie. We found a a cut-out rate of 1,4 % and a re-operation rate of 4,9 %. These rates of usual complications are very low in comparaison with litterature. We did not found a statistic difference between these 2 differents nails.

But, we observed 2 unusual complications: for the Gamma3™ nail, a high rate of automatic distal locking failure, and for the PFN-A™, many patients complained of thigh pain resulting from a prominent cephalic blade. These 2 new complications can be avoided by small changes in the operative procedure.

In our mind these 2 implants can be used for treating all patients with trochanteric fracture, but we need other studies to compare these nails with the new generation of sliding plate

Purpose of the study: Since the advent of locked centromedullary nailing, manufacturers have produced long nails with automatic distal locking systems. Astute instrumentations have been developed to achieve highly stable assemblies. But during insertion, the exact shape o the nail may change adapting to the anatomy of the medullary canal. We wanted to test a new automatic distal locking system: Surelock.

Material and methods: We conducted a preliminary monocentric prospective study over a one-month period where we included all cases of reconstruction of the proximal femur using a long nail. The Surelock system was applied systematically. The amplifier was needed to adjust the insertion device, the amplifier and the nail in the same plane. This configuration required manipulation of the amplifier in a single plane. The operator then had to correct the position of the insertion devise in accordance with the deformation of the inserted nail. It is noteworthy that with this system, the operator’s hands are never in the amplifier field. We measured the time required to achieve distal locking and the time of scopy, as well as any complications.

Results: During this period, ten patients had osteosynthesis with a long reconstruction nail. The epidemiological data were common for this type of condition. Mean time for the distal locking was 11 min (7–15) with a mean 17 s of scopy (2–24). In all cases, the two distal screws were inserted. The automatic locking was correct in 9 of 10 cases. The one failure was the second case in our series.

Discussion: In 2006, Whatling concluded a review of the literature on different means for distal locking that the search should continue for an ideal method and that by far the most widely used method was manual locking. The new method presented here for automatic distal locking allows implantation of two distal safety screws. The main benefit is for the surgeon and the manipulator of the amplifier. Radiation of the surgeon is nearly zero (the surgeon remains outside the amplifier field) and the manipulation to position the amplifier is simplified.

Conclusion: We believe that this technique could be used in routine practice and that this method could be proposed for the entire range of nailing procedures.

Purpose of the study: The purpose of this work was to analyse the respective complications of nail fixations for trochanteric fractures. Since January 2005, we have used the Gamma3™ and the PFN-A™ in routine practice. These nails have evolved and we wanted to compare the latest generation models.

Material and methods: This was a prospective consecutive series of 426 files in a single centre (January 2005 to October 200) reviewed at mean 19 months (3–36 months). All patients with a fracture of the trochanter treated by osteosynthesis were included. Eight senior operators implanted Gamma3™ nails (4 operators) or PFN-A™ nails (4 operators). During this period, 236 Gamma3™ and 190 short PNF-A™ nails were implanted. The two cohorts were statistically comparable regarding: mean age, body weight, ASA score, preoperative autonomy, repair of fracture type.

Results: There was no significant difference between the two implants for: implant position (correct position for 80%), early mortality (5.5%), rate of sepsis (1.6%), which were comparable with the literature. In these two groups, the operative time was shorter than in the literature with an advantage for the PFN-A™ (40 min versus 35 min). Sliding was minimal (1.3% for Gamma3™ versus 1.1% for PFN-A™), as was revision (5.1% versus 4.7%). Conversely, the technical complications were implant dependent: defective automatic distal locking for the Gamma3™ (n=24, 10.2%) with fracture on nail for four patients, and protrusion of the cephalic blade for the PFN-A™ (n=11, 5.8%) due to insufficient impaction and to back glide after excessive distraction followed by impaction.

Discussion: There is a rich body of knowledge on the different nail and screw-plate models. Mean sliding is to the order of 4% and mean revision about 8–9%. We could not find a study comparing the new implant generations. These implants enable a reduction of the general complications for trochanteric surgery, but to ensure persistent results, care must be taken for the distal locking of the Gamma3™ and the intraoperative protrusion of the PFN-A™ blade.