Anzeige
Erschienen in:
25.07.2020 | Trauma Surgery
Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation: is it safe?
Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Ausgabe 5/2021
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Background
Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation (PFNA; Fa. DePuy Synthes) showed good biomechanical and clinical results regarding increased stability and functional outcome [Linden et al. in J Orthop Res 24:2230–2237, 2006;Kammerlander et al. in Injury 49:1436–1444, 2018;]. Cement-associated complications are well known in orthopedic procedures like hip arthroplasty, vertebra- and kyphoplasty. This study investigates outcome and safety of augmentation of the proximal femur nail blade.
Materials and methods
The retrospective review of the 299 patients (mean age 80 ± 13 years; 205 women and 94 men) focused on perioperative complications after augmentation which was performed with Traumacem V+ Cement (Fa. DePuy Synthes) in 152 cases. The decision for augmentation of the blade was made by the attending surgeon and based on the factors age, bone quality, and fracture pattern. Primary outcome measures were changes in blood pressure, heart rate or oxygen saturation, and the number of needed vasoactive drugs during augmentation. Secondary outcome measures where the rate of cement leakage into the joint, mechanical failure, and perioperative complications like pulmonary embolism, stroke, or heart attack.
Results
In 152 augmented cases, no leakage of cement into the joint could be detected. No signs of mechanical failure like cut-out of the blade were seen after 6 weeks and 3 months. Also, augmentation did not show a higher rate of mortality or postoperative complications like stroke, heart attack, embolism, or infection. 57 of 152 augmented cases received an intraoperative intervention with vasoactive medication at the time of augmentation either prophylactically or because of a blood pressure fall. Out of the non-augmented cases, 21 of 147 needed vasoactive medication in the second half of the operation. The difference between these groups was significant (p < 0.05). In the cases without an intervention, there was a significant blood pressure fall of about 8 ± 7.4 mmHg during the augmentation (p < 0.001). Still, none of the augmented cases showed a change in heart rate or oxygen saturation.
Conclusion
The augmentation of the PFNA blade proved to be a safe procedure. Cement augmentation will not increase postoperative complications or mortality. The risk for leakage of cement into the joint is low and mechanical cut-out might be prevented. The decision for augmentation should be made carefully and always be declared loud and in advance to allow the anesthetist to prepare, because blood pressure changes can occur.