TITLE:
PFNA2 versus 95 Degree Condylar Blade Plate in the Management of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures
AUTHORS:
Piyush Gadegone, Wasudeo Gadegone, Vijayanand Lokhande, Virender Kadian
KEYWORDS:
Proximal Femoral Nail Anti-Rotation, Condylar Blade Plate, Internal Fixation, Unstable Intertrochanteric Fracture, Osteoporotic
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Orthopedics,
Vol.14 No.2,
February
8,
2024
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) is known to have advantages in enhancing the anchorage ability of internal fixation in elderly unstable osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture patients. However whether it is superior to condylar blade fixation is not clear. This study aimed to determine which treatment has better clinical outcomes in older patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 86 patients over the age of 60 with unstable trochanteric fractures within the past 3 weeks, were included in this prospective study conducted from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2021. All the intertrochanteric fractures were classified according to AO/OTA classification. Among them, 44 cases were treated with the Proximal Femoral Nail (PFNA2) with or without an augmentation screw, and 42 cases were treated with the Condylar Blade Plate. In addition, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative blood transfusion, postoperative weight-bearing time, hospitalization time, Harris score of hip function, Kyle’s criteria and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean duration of surgery for the PFN group was 66.8 minutes (on average), whereas for the condylar blade plate group, it was 99.30 minutes (on average). The PFNA2 group experienced less blood loss (average of 80 mL) compared to the condylar blade plate group (average of 120 mL). Union and partial weight-bearing occurred earlier in the PFNA2 group (14.1 weeks and 10.6 weeks, respectively) compared to the Condylar blade plate group (18.7 weeks and 15.8 weeks). In two patients from the PFNA2 group, screw backing out and varus collapse complications were encountered; however, these patients remained asymptomatic and did not require revision surgery. In two other patients, screw cut out and breakage of the nail at the helical screw hole leading to non-union of the proximal femur were observed during the nine-month follow-up, necessitating revision surgery with prosthetic replacement. Among the condylar blade plate group, three patients experienced complications, including blade breakage at the blade and plate junction. In two cases, the fracture united in varus, and in one case, the blade cut through, resulting in non-union of the femoral head, which required revision surgery. According to the Harris hip score and Kyle’s criteria, a good-excellent outcome was observed in 92.85% of cases in the PFNA2 group and 90.90% of cases in the condylar blade plate group. Conclusion: Both the Proximal Femoral Nail A2 and Condylar blade plate are effective implants for the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. The intramedullary implant promotes biological healing and allows for early ambulation with minimal complications. Similarly satisfactory restoration of anatomy and favorable radiological and functional results can be achieved with the biological fixation provided by the 95-degree condylar blade plate. However, the use of PFNA2 internal fixation technique has the advantage of less trauma in elderly patients than the 95-degree condylar blade plate.