Proximal Implant Breakage After Cephalomedullary Nailing of Extracapsular Proximal Femur Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Comparative Analysis

View at publisher
Authors: Noelle L. Van Rysselberghe, John B. Michaud, Christian A. González, Matthew Whittaker, Harin Parikh, Juntian Wang, Abrianna S. Robles, Andrea H. Horne, Garrett Cavanaugh, Garrett W. Esper, Arya Amirhekmat, Eleni Berhaneselase
+27 more Natalie Marenghi, Daniel H. Ngo, Marisa McDow, Christopher G. Herbosa, Maricela M. Diaz, Uchechukwu Anthonia E, Zachary Lim, Dmitry Pokhvashchev, Aden N. Malik, Edmond F. O’Donnell, Muhammad Umar Jawad, Sean T. Campbell, Milton TM Little, Walter W. Virkus, Philipp Leucht, Matthew R. Garner, Mark A Lee, John Scolaro, Marschall Brantling Berkes, Saam Morshed, Stephen Warner, Paul W. Perdue, Eben A. Carroll, Justin F. Lucas, Julius Bishop, Lawrence Henry Goodnough, Michael J. Gardner
Cited by: 1
References: 20

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of nail breakage of 3 common cephalomedullary nails for the treatment of AO/OTA 31A1-3 femur fractures. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective study. SETTING: Thirteen level I trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients with AO/OTA 31A1-3 femur fractures treated between 2014 and 2021 with the trochanteric fixation nail-advanced (TFNA), Gamma3, or Trigen InterTAN were included. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND COMPARISONS: The primary outcome was implant (nail or head element) breakage. The secondary outcomes included nonunion, cut-out/cut-through, and overall reoperation rate. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to compare breakage rates between implants while controlling for age, sex, AO/OTA 31A1-2 versus 31A3 fracture patterns, low- versus high-energy mechanisms, and postoperative neck shaft angle (NSA). RESULTS: In total, 2130 patients were included: 770 (36.2%) TFNA, 1073 (50.4%) Gamma3, and 287 (13.5%) InterTAN. The InterTAN group had younger patients (median age: InterTan: 74, TFNA: 77, Gamma3: 80, P < 0.001), more high-energy mechanisms (InterTan: 23%, TFNA: 14%, Gamma3: 10%, P = 0.001), and more varus malreductions (NSA < 128.5: InterTan: 46%, Gamma3: 39%, TFNA: 34%, P = 0.001). The TFNA group was more likely to have an AO/OTA 31A3 fracture pattern than the Gamma3 (TFNA: 17.3%, InterTAN: 14.3%, Gamma3: 12.1%, P = 0.002). The overall rate of implant breakage was 1.4% in the InterTAN group, 1.2% in the TFNA group, and 0% in the Gamma3 group. All breakages occurred in the presence of a nonunion or delayed union. Only two of the 31A3 fracture patterns resulted in breakage, both in the TFNA group, while the remainder occurred in 31A1-2 fracture patterns ( P = 1.0). After controlling for confounding factors listed above, the TFNA and InterTAN groups were associated with a marginally increased odds of implant breakage compared with the Gamma3 (TFNA vs. Gamma3: OR: 0.04, 95% CI:

Fields of Study & Subjects

Hip and Femur Fractures Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries Bone fractures and treatments

Publication details

Journal / source
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
e119–e125
Publication date
6 January 2026
Language
EN