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

Introduction and Objective. When using radiation intraoperatively, a surgeon should aim to maintain the dose as low as reasonably achievable to obtain the diagnostic or therapeutic goal. The UK Health Protection Agency reported mean radiation dose-area-product (DAP) of 4 Gy cm2 for hip procedures. We aimed to investigate factors associated with increased radiation exposure in fixation of proximal femur fractures. Materials and Methods. We assessed 369 neck of femur fractures between April 2019 and April 2020 in one district general hospital. Fractures were classified as extracapsular or intracapsular and into subtypes as per AO classification. Data was collected on type of fractures, implants used, level of surgeon, duration of surgery and DAP. Types of fractures were subclassified as complex (multifragmentary, subtrochanteric and reverse oblique) or simple. Results. Patients with fractures fixed with DHS, short PFNA, long PFNA and cannulated screws were included. 50% of our patients were fixed with hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement and were therefore excluded. 184 patients were included in the analysis. There was a significant association of higher DAP with fracture subtype (P=0.001), fracture complexity (P<0.001), if an additional implant was used (P=0.001), if fixation was satisfactory (P=0.002) and the operative time (P<0.001). DAP was higher in PFNA than DHS and greatest in Long PFNA. There was some evidence of association between the level of the surgeon and DAP, although this was not statistically significant (P=0.069) and remained not significant after adjusting for the variables (fracture complexity, fixation or implant used) (p=0.32). Conclusions. Increased radiation in proximal femur fractures is seen in fixation of complex fractures, certain subtypes, the type of implant used and if an additional implant was required. Seniority of surgeon did not result in less radiation exposure even when adjusting for other factors, which is in contrast to other published studies

INTRODUCTION. Intramedullary nail fixation has been used for successful treatment of long bone fracture such as humerus, tibia and femur. We look at the experience of our trauma unit in treating long bone fracture using the AO approved Expert femoral/tibial nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). We look at the union and complication rates in patients treated with AO approved nailing system for pertrochanteric, femoral and tibial shaft fracture. METHODS. We carried out retrospective case notes review of patients that underwent femoral and tibial nailing during the period of study- October 2007 to August 2009. All patients were treated using the AO approved nailing system. We identified all trauma patients that underwent femoral and tibial nailing through the trauma register. Further information was then obtained by going through medical notes and reviewing all followed-up X-rays stored within the online radiology system. RESULTS. 149 patients, 85 male and 64 female were included into the study. 150 procedures were carried out during period of study as 1 patient underwent conversion of lateral entry femoral nail to PFNA due to refracture. Patients' age ranged from 14-96 with mean of 55. 140 patients had isolated long bone fracture (either femur or tibia) compared to 9 patients with multiple bone fractures. Our unit performed 64 Expert tibial nail, 36 PFNA, 31 Expert lateral entry femoral nail and 19 Expert retrograde femoral nail during period of study. 13 patients treated with intramedullary nail sustained open fracture, 9 of them were compound tibial fracture compared to 4 compound femoral fractures. All patients were followed-up between 2 to 24 months or until death. 9 out of 17 patients that died in this study had diagnosis of tumour. Complication rates were 17% for Expert tibial nail (1 patient with valgus deformity, peroneal nerve palsy and delayed union, 3 with delayed union, 4 with broken locking screw, 2 with wound infection and 1 with abscess over wound site), 4% for lateral/retrograde femoral nail (1 each for pulmonary embolism and broken locking screw) and 4% for PFNA (1 each for delayed union and deep vein thrombosis). The overall complication rates were 10% from this study. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS. We conclude that the AO approved nailing system used for treating pertrochanteric, femoral and tibial fractures were effective with high union rate. The overall complication rates were 10% from this study. Complication rates for tibial nail were as high as 17% compared to 4% for femoral nail or PFNA. The complication rates for PFNA in our study were lower compared to 29% in PFN that was reported in one literature

Hip fractures constitute the most debilitating complication of osteoporosis with a steadily increasing incidence in an aging population. Intramedullary nailing of osteoporotic proximal femoral fractures can be challenging because of poor implant anchorage in the femoral head. Recently, cement augmentation of PFNA blades with Polymethylmethycrylate (PMMA) has shown promising results by enhancing the cutout resistance in proximal femoral fractures. The aim of this biomechanical study was to assess the impact of cement augmentation on the fixation strength of TFNA blades and screws within the femoral head, and compare its effect with head elements placed in a center or antero–posterior off–center positions. Eight groups were formed out of 96 polyurethane foam specimens with low density, simulating isolated femoral heads with severe osteoporotic bone. The specimens in each group were implanted with either non–augmented or PMMA–augmented TFNA blades or screws in a center or antero–posterior off–center position, 7 mm anterior or 7 mm posterior. They were mechanically tested in a setup simulating an unstable pertrochanteric fracture with lack of postero–medial support and load sharing at the fracture gap. All specimens underwent progressively increasing cyclic loading until catastrophic construct failure. Varus–valgus and head rotation angles were monitored by an inclinometer mounted on the head. A varus collapse of 5° or a 10° head rotation were defined as the clinically relevant failure criterion. Load at failure for specimens with augmented TFNA head elements (screw center: 3799 N ± 326 (mean ± SD); blade center: 3228 N ± 478; screw off–center: 2680 N ± 182; blade off–center: 2591 N ± 244) was significantly higher compared to the respective non–augmented specimens (blade center: 1489 N ± 41; screw center: 1593 N ± 120; blade off–center: 1018 N ± 48; screw off–center: 515 N ± 73), p<0.001. In both non–augmented and augmented specimens, the failure load in center position was significantly higher compared to the respective off–center position, regardless of head element, p<0.001. Non–augmented TFNA blades in off–center position revealed significantly higher load at failure versus non–augmented screws in off–center position, p<0.001. Cement augmentation clearly enhances fixation stability of TFNA blades and screws. Non–augmented blades outperformed screws in antero–posterior off–center position. Positioning of TFNA blades in the femoral head is more forgiving than TFNA screws in terms of failure load. Augmentation with TFNA has not been approved by FDA