Download PDF
Osteosynthesis and Trauma Care 2005; 13(4): 219-227
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-836623
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Osteosynthesis of Per- to Subtrochanteric Femur Fractures with the PLATON Nail: Early Results

T. Pavlidis1 , P. Enns1 , U. Horas1 , A. Kruckemeyer2 , C. Meyer1 , U. Joosten2 , R. Schnettler1
  • 1Department of Trauma Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University Gießen, Germany
  • 2Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Marienhospital, Osnabrück, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
01 December 2005 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Various intramedullary nail systems have been established for the treatment of per- and subtrochanteric femoral fractures. This study focused mainly on the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a new intramedullary nail system named the PLATON nail. One hundred and thirty patients who had per- and subtrochanteric femoral fractures were treated using the intramedullary PLATON nail over the period from September 2001 until May 2003. The median age of these patients was 76 (range: 39-98) years with a predominance of female patients (3 : 1). The classification of the fractures was determined with regard to Evans and the AO guidelines. Patient compliance was recorded, as well as clinical and radiographic examinations for each patient. The 130 operations were conducted by 28 surgeons. The mean time of surgery was 54 minutes. A closed reduction of the fracture preceded the locking nail implantation in 94 % of the cases. The insertion of the nail was found to be easy by 93 % of the surgeons. A lateral movement of the femoral lag screw due to displacement was seen in 5 cases. Infection and haematoma were observed in 5 patients. Compared to other similar implants, the cut-out rates, secondary fractures, implant failures and the need for revision were lower. On the other hand, the incidences of infection, haematoma and irritation are comparable to other implants. While the differences between the PLATON nail and other types of systems were moderate in many respects, a visible reduction of cut-out and secondary fractures were indicated by this study.

Key words

Trochanteric fracture - subtrochanteric fracture - femur fracture - PLATON nail - intramedullary nail

References

  • 1 Adams C I, Robinson C M, Court-Brown C M, McQueen M M. Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur.  J Orthop Trauma. 2001;  15 394-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Albareda J, Laderiga A, Palanca D. et al . Complications and technical problems with the gamma nail.  Int Orthopaed. 1996;  20 47-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Andreß H J, Forkel H, Grubwinkel M, Landes J, Piltz S, Hertlein H, Lob G. Versorgung der per- bis subtrochantären Femurfraktur durch Gammanagel und modulare Hüftprothese.  Unfallchirurg. 2000;  103 444-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baumgaertner M R, Curtin S L, Lindskog D M. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures.  Clin Orthop. 1998;  348 87-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bridle S H, Patel A D, Bircher M. et al . Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomized prospective comparison of the Gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1991;  73 330-334
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Butt M S, Kriklers S J, Nafie S, Ali M S. Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma-nail.  Injury. 1995;  26 615-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chi-Chuan W, Chun-Hsiung S, Ming-Yih L, Ching-Lung T. Biomechanical analysis of location of lag screw of a dynamic hip screw in treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fracture.  J Trauma. 1996;  41 699-702
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Friedl W. Vergleichende Untersuchung der Gammanagel(G)- und Gleitnagel(GN)-Osteosynthese bei per- und subtrochantären Femurfrakturen.  Hefte Unfallchir. 1996;  262 4-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fritz T, Hiersemann K, Krieglstein C, Friedl W. Prospective randomized comparison of Gliding Nail and Gamma Nail in the therapy of trochanteric fractures.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;  119 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fritz T, Weiss C, Krieglstein C, Quentmeier A. The classic nail in the therapy of trochanteric fractures: A prospective, controlled study.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;  119 308-314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gaebler C, Stanzl-Tschegg S, Tschegg E K, Kukla C, Menth-Chiari W A, Wozasek G E, Heinz T. Implant failure of the gamma nail.  Int J Care Injur. 1999;  30 91-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guyer P, Landholt M, Keller H, Eberle C. Der Gammanagel bei per- und intertrochantären Femurfrakturen: Alternative oder Ergänzung zur DHS.  Akt Traumatol. 1991;  21 242-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Guyer P, Landolt M, Eberle C, Keller H. The Gamma nail as a resilient alternative to the dynamic hip screw in unstable proximal femoral fractures in the elderly.  Helv Chir Acta. 1992;  58 697-703
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Halder S C. The gamma nail for peritrochanteric fractures.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1992;  74 340-344
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hardy D CR, Descamps P Y, Krallis P, Fabeck L. et al . Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1998;  80 618-630
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Haynes R C, Poll R G, Miles A W, Weston R B. Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut out with the gamma locking nail and AO DHS.  Injury. 1997;  28 337-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Heinz T, Vécsei V. Komplikationen und Fehler bei der Anwendung des Gammanagels.  Chirurg. 1994;  65 943-952
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kaiser W, Burmeester J, Hausmann H, Guliemos V, Hatzel M, Merker S J. Vergleichende Stabilitätsprüfung von DHS und Gamma-Nagel-Osteosynthesen bei instabilen pertrochanteren Femurosteotomien.  Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1997;  382 100-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Leung K S, So W S, Shen W Y, Hui P W. Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for peritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1992;  74 345-351
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Lustenberger A, Ganz R. Epidemiologie trochantärer Femurfrakturen über 2 Jahrzehnte (1972-1989).  Unfallchirurg. 1995;  98 278-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mahaisavariya B, Laupattarakasem W. Craking of the femoral shaft by the Gamma nail.  Injury. 1992;  23 493-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Parker M J. Cutting out of the dynamic hip screw related to its position.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1992;  74 625
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Parker M J, Pryor G A. Gamma nailing versus DHS for extracapsular femoral fractures: a meta-analysis of 10 randomised trials.  Int Orthop. 1996;  20 163-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rebuzzi E, Pannone A, Schiavetti S, Santoriello P, de Nicola U, Fancellu D, Caub P, Gulli S, Dordolin P, Maniscalco P, Morici F, Commessatti M, Pozzi-Mucelli M, Maiorana C S, Bassini F. IMHS clinical experience in the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures. The results of a multicentric Italian study of 981 cases.  Injury. 2002;  33 407-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rosenblum S F, Zuckerman J D, Kummer F J. et al . A biomechanical evaluation of the Gamma nail.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1992;  74 352-357
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schmit-Neuerburg K P. Versorgung per- und subtrochanterer Femurfrakturen mit Osteosynthesen und Endoprothesen.  Aktuel Chir. 1995;  30 2-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schumpelik W, Jantzen P M. Die Versorgung der Frakturen im Trochanterbereich mit einer nichtsperrenden Laschenschraube.  Chirurg. 1953;  24 506-508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Shaw J A, Wilson S. Internal fixation of proximal femur fractures: a biomechanical comparison of the Gamma locking nail and the omega compression hip screw.  Orthop Rev. 1993;  22 61-68
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Simmermacher R KJ, Bosch A M, Van der Werken C. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures.  Injury. 1999;  30 327-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Steindl A, Schörghuber L. Frühergebnisse und Problemanalyse nach Versorgung per- und subtrochantärer Oberschenkelfrakturen mit Gleitnagel und PFN.  Osteosynthese International. 2000;  8 86-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Traeger G, Schmid C, Zettl R, Schweiberer L, Nast-Kolb D. Stable and unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Differentiated indications for the dynamic hip screw.  Unfallchirurg. 2000;  103 741-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wagner R, Blattert T R, Weckbach A. Problemlösung der extraartikulären, koxalen Femurfraktur durch das „Gleitschrauben-Nagel-Prinzip”. Ergebnisse zweier verschiedener Systeme.  Unfallchirurg. 1998;  101 894-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Williams W W, Parker B C. Complications associated with the use of the Gamma nail.  Injury. 1992;  23 291-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. med. Theodoros Pavlidis

Department of Trauma Surgery · Justus-Liebig-University

Rudolph-Buchheim-Straße 7

35385 Gießen

Germany

Phone: +49/6 41/9 94 46 01

Fax: +49/6 41/9 94 46 09

Email: Theodoros.Pavlidis@chiru.med.uni-giessen.de