Helical Blade vs Lag Screw Fixation for Cephalomedullary Nailing of Low Energy Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures

Hip Fractures Clinical Trial

Official title:

Helical Blade vs Lag Screw Fixation for Cephalomedullary Nailing of Low Energy Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures: Are There Differences in the Failure Rate? A Prospective, Randomized Study

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04306198
• Other study ID #: 1937
• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: March 2020
• Est. completion date: November 2021

Study information

• Verified date: March 2020
• Source: Instituto Traumatologico Dr. Teodoro Gebauer Weisser
• Contact: Tomas Amenabar, MD
• Phone: +56991594716
• Email: tomasamenabar[@]gmail.com
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study will be to compare the failure and complications rates of and orthopedic implant (Cephalomedullary Nail) fixed with two different options actually available: lag screw or helical blade.

The study population will be patient who have been diagnosed with an intertrochanteric hip fracture.

Hypothesis: Our hypothesis is that the helical blade will have a higher failure rate compared to the lag screw

Description:

Hip fractures in the elderly are recognized worldwide as a major public health problem, its incidence is increasing and it is expected to have 6,26 million cases per year worldwide by 2050.

Surgical treatment is recognized as the best option in these patients because it allows early rehabilitation and decreases mortality and complications.

Currently, the fixation with a cephalomedullary nail is the most commonly used treatment, since it has some mechanical advantages compared to other fixation methods and achieves adequate stability allowing early weight bearing and rehabilitation with low failure rates.

Changes in the design of these implants have tried to reduce the failure rate. The main change has been the introduction of the helical blade for cephalic fixation, instead of a lag screw. The concept behind this modification is that the blade would have greater fixation to the bone and less risk of cut out, because it is supposed to compact the bone around the helical blade instead of removing it.

In spite of some biomechanical studies in cadaveric or artificial models validating this biomechanical advantage, clinical series have shown controversial results. Recently, retrospective clinical studies have shown similar results with the use of the helical blade, and even some studies have shown a higher failure rate compared to the sliding screw.

Currently there is no prospective evidence regarding the failure rate of these two fixation methods. Our objective is to contribute with solid evidence to solve this answer. That is why we have designed a prospective randomized study with strict inclusion criteria, follow up and radiographic measurements.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Enrollment: 200
• Est. completion date: November 2021
• Est. primary completion date: April 2021
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 65 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Low Energy Mechanism

• Hip fracture classified as 31.A1.2 - 31 A1.3 and 31.A2 in the AO classification (year 2018)

Exclusion Criteria:

• Medical contraindication to surgery

• A fracture due to malignancy

• Peri implant fractures

• Inability to walk before the fracture

• An inability to comply with rehabilitation

• Non-ambulatory pre-fracture

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Fractures, Bone
• Hip Fractures

Intervention

Device:
• Osteosynthesis with Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN), using a lag screw as a proximal fixation.
Closed reduction and surgical stabilization of intertrochanteric hip fractures using Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN), with lag screw as proximal fixation
• Osteosynthesis with Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN), using a helical blade as a proximal fixation.
Closed reduction and surgical stabilization of intertrochanteric hip fractures using Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN), with helical blade as proximal fixation

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
n/a

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Instituto Traumatologico Dr. Teodoro Gebauer Weisser

References & Publications (4)

Al-Munajjed AA, Hammer J, Mayr E, Nerlich M, Lenich A. Biomechanical characterisation of osteosyntheses for proximal femur fractures: helical blade versus screw. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;133:1-10. — View Citation

Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ 3rd. Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int. 1992 Nov;2(6):285-9. — View Citation

Ibrahim I, Appleton PT, Wixted JJ, DeAngelis JP, Rodriguez EK. Implant cut-out following cephalomedullary nailing of intertrochanteric femur fractures: Are helical blades to blame? Injury. 2019 Apr;50(4):926-930. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.02.015. Epub 20 — View Citation

Sommers MB, Roth C, Hall H, Kam BC, Ehmke LW, Krieg JC, Madey SM, Bottlang M. A laboratory model to evaluate cutout resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Jul;18(6):361-8. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Implant Failure	Rate of cut out , cut through, varus collapse	6 months
Secondary	Complications	Rate of Infection and Non Union.	3 weeks, 3 months , 6 months
Secondary	Parker Mobility score	Score , Minimum value 0 , maximum value 9 , higher scores mean a better outcome.	3 months , 6 months