Choice of Entry Point Does Not Affect Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Antegrade Intra-medullary Nailing in Patients with Shaft of Femur Fracture: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: The choice of entry point, Greater trochanter (GT), or Piriformis entry (PE) for antegrade intramedullary nailing (IMN) of the femur is crucial. This study was performed to compare these two entry points in the patients with shaft of femur fractures regarding intra-operative parameters, radiological and functional outcomes. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients underwent GT entry nailing, while 25 patients underwent PE nailing. Surgical time, Intra-operative blood units transfused, Intra-operative fluoroscopy exposure by number of C-arm shots taken, mean drop in hemoglobin, and incidence of iatrogenic fracture were recorded. Patients were followed up at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 6 months to look for radiological healing and improvements in functional outcome using Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS). MRI of bilateral hips with pelvis was done in 25 patients at 6 months of follow-up to detect any preliminary signs of AVN. Results: The mean drop in hemoglobin in the GT group was significantly lesser than the PE group (p = 0.02). Mean MHHS at 4 weeks post-op was also significantly higher in the GT group (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between both the groups regarding surgical duration, fluoroscopy exposure, radiological and functional outcomes in the long term. None of the patients who underwent MRI displayed any preliminary sign of AVN. Conclusion: GT entry nails lead to lesser surgical time, fluoroscopy exposure, and intra-operative blood loss. Both the nailing systems achieve excellent fracture unions and comparable functional outcomes in the long term, and there is a minuscule risk of AVN in adult patients undergoing IMN.

Greater trochanteric versus piriformis fossa entry nails for femur shaft fractures: Resolving the controversy.

BACKGROUND: Intramedullary nailing is the treatment of choice for shaft of femur fractures in adults. Antegrade nails involve entry through either piriformis fossa (PE) or greater trochanteric (GT) tip. The superiority of one entry point over the other is a matter of debate, and the present review was done to determine the same. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is GT entry for antegrade femur nailing superior to the PE for shaft femur fractures in adults? OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review was conducted to determine the superiority of one entry point over the other by comparing the outcome parameters like operative time, exposure to fluoroscopy, mal-unions, non unions, abductor weakness, varus malalignment and Harris Hip scores (HHS). METHODOLOGY: Three databases of PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched for relevant articles that directly compared GT with PE for nailing in shaft femur fractures in adults. RESULTS: We analysed a total of 9 studies published between the years 2011-2017. There were 5 retrospective and 4 prospective studies, out of which 3 were randomised. The total number of patients was 256 in GT group and 460 in PE group. OUTCOMES: There was significant superiority of GT entry over PE on meta analysis; lesser operation time: standard mean difference (SMD): -21.01; lesser exposure to fluoroscopy : SMD: 36.36; lesser incidence of abductor weakness: Odd's ratio (OR): 14.35; better functional outcome (HHS): SMD -2.48. CONCLUSION: GT entry nails are superior to PE nails for treating shaft of femur fractures in adults. They have a shorter learning curve and better functional outcomes, however the rates of union are comparable in both.

Are piriformis reconstruction implants ideal for prophylactic femoral neck fixation?

OBJECTIVES: Prophylactic femoral neck fixation may be performed in the setting of geriatric diaphyseal femur fracture, pathologic or impending atypical femur fractures. Fixation constructs often utilize cephalomedullary implants with one or two proximal interlocking screws into the femoral head/neck. Variations in proximal femoral anatomy and implant design can interfere with the placement of two screws in the femoral head and neck. Our objective was to assess the strength of piriformis entry reconstruction implants with one versus two proximal interlock screws for prophylactic femoral neck fixation. METHODS: Thirty fourth generation synthetic femur models were separated into 5 groups. The control group was an intact femur, and the second group was an intact femur with an entry hole in the piriformis fossa. The remaining groups had an intramedullary nail placed with either 0, 1, or 2 screws placed into the femoral head and neck. Each femur was mechanically loaded along the mechanical axis through the femoral head. Load to failure and failure displacement were recorded. RESULTS: Mean load to failure was 5583 ± 543 N in the intact femur. Constructs with 2 screws had a significantly higher mean load to failure (3223 ± 474 N) compared to one screw constructs (2368 ± 280 N). All of the experimental groups remained significantly lower than the intact femur model (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that piriformis entry reconstruction implants have a significantly lower load to failure compared to an intact femur irrespective of screw construct. Further studies are needed to investigate this potential iatrogenic weakening.

Piriformis fossa - an anatomical and orthopedics consideration.

INTRODUCTION: Piriformis fossa is an important anatomical landmark having significant clinical value in orthopedic surgery; but its location and anatomical relationship with surrounding structures are not clearly defined. Hence it is necessary to clearly describe it in respect to anatomical and orthopedic aspect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty Cadaveric dry femoral bones and Dissection of the four hip specimens were used to study the Piriformis fossa in respect to location and its relationship with surrounding structures. Clinical importance of piriformis fossa was determined in reference to antegrade femoral nail insertion. OBSERVATIONS: Piriformis muscle and so called piriformis fossa are unrelated entities. Piriformis fossa is anatomical site of insertion of obturator externus. In dry cadaveric femora; fossa was not always located in the direction of femoral shaft. It was located in the direction of femoral shaft in 24% cases only. In 68% cases femoral canal was aligned lateral and in 8% cases, it lies medial to the fossa. CONCLUSION: Piriformis fossa should be named as Trorchanteric fossa or Obturator fossa for better anatomical description. So called Piriformis fossa does not found to be universally corresponding to femoral shaft hence selection of entry site should be based on variable proximal femur and area on femur which corresponds to femoral shaft.

Comparison of Greater Trochanter Versus Piriformis Entry Nail for Treatment of Femur Shaft Fracture

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of femoral shaft fracture treatment with intramedullary nailing performed using a greater trochanter and a piriformis entry nail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 57 patients treated by antegrade nailing for a femoral shaft fracture between January 2008 and April 2013 were included in this study. We evaluated postoperative radiographs of 57 femoral shaft fractures stabilized with femoral intramedullary nailing at a single institutional center. The cases included 25 piriformis fossa entry nails and 32 greater trochanter entry nails. Outcome measures included the alignment, union rate and duration of union, complications, operation time, intra-operative bleeding, and a pain rating scale. RESULTS: The alignment, union rate, and duration of union did not differ significantly between the groups with piriformis fossa and trochanteric nailing. In addition, no significant differences regarding complications and operation time were observed between the two groups. Less intra-operative bleeding was observed in the trochanteric nailing group. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.044). CONCLUSION: Use of a femoral nail specially designed for the trochanteric insertion resulted in equally high union rates, duration of union, and low complication rates. Thus, greater trochanter entry nails were similar to conventional antegrade femoral nailing through the piriformis fossa.

Results of Intramedullary Nailing of Femoral Shaft Fracture: Trochanteric Entry Portal (Sirus Nail) versus Piriformis Entry Portal (M/DN Nail)

PURPOSE: To compare treatment results obtained using the trochanteric (Sirus nail) entry portal with those obtained using the Piriformis fossa (M/DN) entry portal during intramedullary (IM) nailing of femur shaft fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundreds and thirty-two patients treated for femur shaft fracture using IM nails from February, 2001 to May, 2010 were divided into two groups. group 1 was composed of 180 patients treated through the trochanteric (Sirus nail; n=180) entry portal, while group 2 contained 170 patients treated through the piriformis fossa (M/DN nail; n=170) entry portal. We compared the clinical and radiographic findings of both groups to evaluate the treatment results. RESULTS: Functional result, range of motion and union time (18, 20 weeks) were similar in both groups. The operation time of patients in the over-weighted group was 90 minutes in group 1 and 120 minutes in group 2 (p0.05). There were 18 iatrogenic fractures in group 1 and 4 in group 2 (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: There was not much difference in complications based on clinical and radiographic findings of both groups. For groups using the trochanteric entry portal, the operation time was shorter and blood loss was lower than in groups using the piriformis entry portal. Iatrogenic fracture occurred more often in the group using the trochanteric entry portal than in the group using the piriformis entry portal.

The Treatment of IM Nailing of Femoral Shaft Fracture: Piriformis Fossa versus Trochanteric Entry Portal

PURPOSE: To compare the results of IM nailing of femur shaft fractures using trochanteric and piriformis fossa entry portal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 37 patients were treated with IM nail using Trochanteric (Trochanter group: TG, n=17) and piriformis fossa entry portal (piriformis group: PG, n=20) and were followed from February 2004 to 2007. The outcomes were assessed based on the clinical and radiographic findings. RESULTS: The functional result, ROM and union time were similar in both groups. The alignment was similar in both groups but PG showed variable alignment in proximal 1/3. Incision was larger in PG (PG=8.7 cm, TG=5.8 cm, p0.05), there was statistically significant difference in overweight groups (PG=125 minutes, TG=90 minutes, p<0.05). Blood loss was 313 cc in PG, 268 cc in TG and less in TG in overweight patients (p<0.05). There was 5.7degrees of varus angulation in PG, 2 nonunion cases in both groups. CONCLUSION: The femoral nail specially designed for trochanteric insertion resulted in high union rates, low complication rates similar to conventional nail and the trochanteric nail can be the alternative choice especially in proximal femur fracture and overweight patients.