Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 79-B, Issue 2 | Pages 322 - 326
1 Mar 1997
Katz RP Callaghan JJ Sullivan PM Johnston RC

We performed 83 consecutive cemented revision total hip arthroplasties in 77 patients between 1977 and 1983 using improved cementing techniques. One patient (two hips) was lost to follow-up. The remaining 76 patients (81 hips) had an average age at revision of 63.7 years (23 to 89).

At the final follow-up 18 hips (22%) had had a reoperation, two (2.5%) for sepsis, three (4%) for dislocation and 13 (16%) for aseptic loosening. The incidence of rerevision for aseptic femoral loosening was 5.4% and for aseptic acetabular loosening 16%. These results confirm that cemented femoral revision is a durable option in revision hip surgery when improved cementing techniques are used, but that cemented acetabular revision is unsatisfactory.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_18 | Pages 6 - 6
14 Nov 2024
Karjalainen L Lähdesmäki M Ylitalo A Eskelinen A Mattila VM Repo J
Full Access

Background. Cephalomedullary nails are widely used for fixation of unstable pertrochanteric fractures. In 2018, the Depuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail - Advanced (TFNA) implant was introduced at a level I academic trauma center. Thereafter, the TFNA swiftly replaced the older implant models used at the time. Subsequently, clinical concerns were raised about the use of the TFNA due to reports of nail breakage. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the concerns raised about the performance of the TFNA were valid and to assess long-term outcomes. Methods. The data consisted of 2397 patients who had undergone a proximal femoral hip fracture procedure between 2014 and 2020. Data were handpicked from patient records. TFNA was compared with TFN, PFNA, Gamma3, and Intertan regarding nail breakage, breakage time and long-term outcomes. Results. After exclusion a total of 23/1667 (1.4%) nails broke during the follow-up period. The TFNA broke the most often with 15 cases (2.0%), followed by the Gamma3 with five cases (1.1 %) and the PFNA with three cases (1.3%). Overall, the mean (SD) nail breakage time was 233 (147.8) days. However, for the TFNA, PFNA, and Gamma3, the mean breakage times were 176.8 days (109.9), 419 days (108.6), and 291.8 (153.4), respectively. In cox regression analysis we observed significant reduction in nail breakage when using PFNA with adjusted hazard risk of 0.081 [95% Ci, 0.011-0.576, p=0.011]. Conclusions. In our data, the TFNA had a slightly higher risk for nail breakage when compared to the PFNA and the Gamma3, with a risk difference of 0.7% and 0.9%, respectively. On average, the TFNA broke nearly four months earlier than the Gamma3 and more than eight months earlier than the PFNA. It should be noted, however, that implant breakage is a relatively infrequent complication