• Héctor J Aguado, Sergio País-Ortega, Virginia García-Virto, Patricia Bodas-Gallego, Aranzazu Álvarez-Ramos, Abel Ganso, María Plata-García, María Macho-Mier, Ester Rodríguez-García, Belén García-Medrano, and David C Noriega.
• Traumatology and Orthopaedics Surgery Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Av. Ramón y Cajal, 47007, Valladolid, Spain; School of Medicine, Valladolid University, Av. Ramón y Cajal, 47007, Valladolid, Spain. Electronic address: hjaguado@gmail.com.
• Injury. 2024 Oct 1; 55 Suppl 5: 111673111673.

IntroductionThe management of extracapsular proximal femoral fractures (EPFF) with intramedullary nails in the elderly is hindered by osteoporosis, leading to complications that significantly impact functionality due to restrictions for full weight-bearing. We hypothesized that cement augmentation of the cephalic blade could enhance the bone-implant interface and reduce mechanical failure, thereby improving patient functionality in the management of EPFF.Materials And MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients ≥ 70 years old with type 31-A EPFF (AO/OTA classification) treated with intramedullary nailing between 2017 and 2021, with and without cephalic blade augmentation with bone cement. Evaluation included demographic, clinical/functional parameters, complications, mortality, and radiological assessment (tip-apex distance (TAD), position of the helical blade, cut-out, cut-through, and any fixation failure).ResultsFifty-eight patients were included, with 30 in the augmented group and 28 in the non-augmented group, with a median age of 88 and 86 years, respectively (p = 0.143), and a median follow-up of 17.9 and 18.2 months, respectively (p = 0.395). Both groups were comparable in terms of sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, place of residence, pre-fracture mobility, and fracture stability. However, the non-augmented group showed worse ASA grade and pre-fracture cognitive status (p = 0.043). The most common position of the blade was center-center in both groups (96.7 % and 82.1 %, respectively) (p = 0.201). The mean TAD was 15.09 mm (±4.35) in the study group and 16.97 mm (±6.57) in the control group (p = 0.213). At one-year follow-up, there were no differences in medical complications (26.7 % and 28.6 %) (p = 1), surgical complications (6.7 % and 10.7 %) (p = 0.462), mortality (33.3 % and 21.4 %) (p = 0.385), or mechanical failure (0 % and 7.1 %) (p = 0.229). In the augmented group, one patient had intra-articular cement leak and implant infection, and a second patient presented avascular necrosis. In the non-augmented group, there was one periprosthetic fracture, one cut-out and one cut-through.ConclusionsCement augmentation in EPFF management does not improve functional outcomes or reduce mechanical complications. Furthermore, augmentation did not affect fracture reduction or the position of the helical blade in the head, nor was it associated with an increase in medical complications. However, augmentation can be considered a safe technique.Level Of EvidenceLevel IV.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…