Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw

Abstract

BackgroundEarly fixation and rehabilitation is the gold standard treatment for intertrochanteric femur fractures. Cement augmentation through perforated head elements has been developed to avoid postoperative complications such as cut-out or cut-through. The purpose of this study was to compare two head elements in terms of cement distribution using computed tomography (CT) and to examine their initial fixation and clinical outcomes.MethodsElderly patients who had intertrochanteric fractures were treated with a trochanteric fixation nail advanced (TFNA) helical blade (Blade group) or a TFNA lag screw (Screw group). In both groups, 4.2 mL of cement was injected under an image intensifier (1.8 mL of cement was directed cranially and 0.8 mL each caudally, anteriorly, and posteriorly). Patient demographics and clinical outcome were investigated post-operatively. Cement distribution from the center of the head element was evaluated with CT. Maximum penetration depth (MPD) were measured in the coronal and sagittal planes. On each axial plane, the cross-sectional areas in the cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior directions were calculated. The sum of cross-sectional areas (successive 36 slices) was defined as the volume of the head element.ResultsThe Blade group included 14 patients, and the Screw group included 15 patients. In the Blade group, MPD in the anterior and caudal direction was significantly greater than that in the posterior direction (p < 0.01). In the Screw group, volume in the cranial and posterior direction was significantly greater than that in the Blade group (p = 0.03). Subsequently, the total volume in the Screw group was significantly larger than that in the Blade group (p < 0.01). No significant correlation was detected between bone mineral density, T score, young adult mean, and total cement volume. Change in radiographic parameters and clinical outcome such as Parker score and visual analog scale were similar in both groups. No patients suffered from cut-out / cut through or non-union.ConclusionsThe position of cement distribution through the lag screw is different from that through the helical blade, and the total volume of the head element is significantly larger in the lag screw. Both groups had similarly effective results in terms of mechanical stability after surgery, postoperative pain and early phase of rehabilitation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN45341843, 24/12/2022, Retrospectively registered.