Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 16, 2025
Treatment with Locking Intramedullary Nailing for Intertrochanteric Fracture of the Femur Utilizing a New Awl with a Distal Positioner
Published on: June 6, 2025
Comparison of Helical Blade Systems for Osteoporotic Intertrochanteric Fractures Using Biomechanical Analysis and
Hyeonjoon Lee1, Sang Hong Lee1,2, Wonbong Lim2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, Gwangju 61453, Republic of Korea.
Abstract:
Background and Objectives: This study aimed to compare the biomechanical properties and outcomes of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures treated with two different helical blade systems, the trochanteric fixation nail-advanced (TFNA) and proximal femoral nail antirotation II (PFNA), to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the newly introduced TFNA system. Materials and Methods: A biomechanical comparison of the two helical blades was performed using uniaxial compression tests on polyurethane foam blocks of different densities. The peak resistance (PR) and accumulated resistance (AR) were measured during the 20 mm advancement through the test block. For clinical comparison, 63 osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures treated with TFNA were identified and compared with the same number of fractures treated with PFNA using propensity score matching. Ambulatory status, medial migration, lateral sliding, fixation failure, and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the two groups over a minimum of 1 year's follow up. Results: The uniaxial compression test showed that a slightly, but significantly lower resistance was required to advance the TFNA through the test block compared with the PFNA (20 PCF, p = 0.017 and p = 0.026; 30 PCF, p = 0.007 and p = 0.001 for PR and AR, respectively). Clinically, the two groups showed no significant differences in post-operative ambulatory status and patient-reported outcomes. However, in TFNA groups, significantly more medial migration (TFNA, 0.75 mm; PFNA, 0.40 mm; p = 0.0028) and also, lateral sliding was noted (TFNA, 3.99 mm; PFNA, 1.80 mm; p = 0.004). Surgical failure occurred in four and two fractures treated with the TFNA and PFNA, respectively. Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that the newly introduced TFNA provides clinical outcomes comparable with those of the PFNA. However, inferior resistance to medial migration in the TFNA raises concerns regarding potential fixation failures.
