COMPARISON OF CEMENT AUGMENTATION VS NON-AUGMENTED FRACTURE FIXATION OF INTERTROCHANTERIC FEMUR FRACTURE IN ELDERLY PATIENTS

AMANDEEP SINGH BAKSHI; JASPREET SINGH; ABHISHEK; MUKUL SHARMA; MUDIT KUMAR SHARMA; MUDIT KUMAR SHARMA; HARJAP SINGH; HARRY MEHTA

doi:10.22159/ijcpr.2025v17i5.7070

Authors

AMANDEEP SINGH BAKSHI Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India
JASPREET SINGH Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7853-9944
ABHISHEK Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India
MUKUL SHARMA Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India
MUDIT KUMAR SHARMA Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India
MUDIT KUMAR SHARMA Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India
HARJAP SINGH Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0191-1196
HARRY MEHTA Department of Orthopaedics, GMC Patiala, Punjab, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ijcpr.2025v17i5.7070

Keywords:

Intertrochanteric fractures, Cement augmentation, Harris hip score, Barthel index, Sliding

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cement-augmented versus non-augmented fixation methods for treating intertrochanteric femur fractures.

Methods: This prospective study was done in a tertiary care hospital of North India on patients presenting with intertrochanteric fractures. After enrolment, the patients using the stringent selection criteria they underwent fracture reduction with and without cement augmentation. Functional assessment utilising the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Quality of life assessment and associated complications were evaluated. Follow-up was done at 6 w, 3 mo, 6 mo and until radiographic union was achieved.

Results: The mean duration of operation was significantly longer in Group I (59.68 min) compared to Group II (49.72 min; p<0.0001). Functional outcomes, assessed using HHS and Barthel index, showed non-significant differences between groups. However, intra-group analyses indicated significant improvements over time. Radiologically, Group II had a significantly greater mean sliding distance of the screw/blade (14.12 mm vs. 12.14 mm; p<0.00001) and higher mean varus deviation (7.16° vs. 3.15°; p<0.0001). Complications were minimal and similar in both groups, with no systemic or thromboembolic complications reported.

Conclusion: The study found significant differences in operative time between the two groups, but functional outcomes were comparable at all follow-up intervals. Radiological analyses revealed significant differences in screw/blade sliding and varus deviation, indicating that cement augmentation may affect biomechanical stability.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Karakus O, Ozdemir G, Karaca S, Cetin M, Saygi B. The relationship between the type of unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture and mobility in the elderly. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Aug 22;13(1):207. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0911-1.

2. Sharma A, Sethi A, Sharma S. Tratamento de fraturas intertrocantericas estaveis do femur com haste femoral proximal versus parafuso dinamico de quadril: um estudo comparativo. Rev Bras Ortop. 2018 Jul-Aug;53(4):477-81. doi: 10.1016/j.rbo.2017.07.002.

3. Kani KK, Porrino JA, Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Fragility fractures of the proximal femur: review and update for radiologists. Skelet Radiol. 2019 Jan;48(1):29-45. doi: 10.1007/s00256-018-3008-3.

4. Amini MH, Feldman JJ, Weinlein IV JC. High complication rate in young patients with high-energy intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Orthopedics. 2017 Mar 1;40(2):e2939. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20161128-04.

5. Zamboni DR. Intertrochanteric fractures. In: Slullitel P, Rossi L, Camino Willhuber G, editors. Orthopaedics and trauma: current concepts and best practices. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2024. p. 467-75. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-30518-4_37.

6. Attum B, Pilson H. Intertrochanteric femur fracture. In: Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Aug 8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493161/.

7. Tronzo RG. Special considerations in management. Orthop Clin North Am. 1974;5(3):571-83. doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(20)31057-9.

8. Wang F, Meng C, Cao XB, Chen Q, Xu XF, Chen Q. Hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of complicated femoral intertrochanteric fracture in elderly patients. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2018 Sep 25;31(9):818-23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2018.09.008, PMID 30332874.

9. Carpintero P. Complications of hip fractures: a review. World J Orthop. 2014 Sep 9;5(4):402. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v5.i4.402.

10. Bartonicek J. Trochanteric fractures: sliding hip screw. Fractures of the proximal femur: improving outcomes: expert consult; 2010 Sep 24. p. 113.

11. Sivananthan S, Goodman SB, Burke M. Failure mechanisms in joint replacement. In: Joint replacement technology. Elsevier; 2021. p. 373-402. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-821082-6.00017-0.

12. Gunaki RB, Deokar NP, Sudaryanto A. Shraddha Naik Bahulekar. Adv Clin Med; 2024 May 1. p. 228.

13. Stramazzo L, Ratano S, Monachino F, Pavan D, Rovere G, Camarda L. Cement augmentation for trochanteric fracture in elderly: a systematic review. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021;15:65-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.10.034, PMID 33717919.

14. Von Der Linden P, Gisep A, Boner V, Windolf M, Appelt A, Suhm N. Biomechanical evaluation of a new augmentation method for enhanced screw fixation in osteoporotic proximal femoral fractures. J Orthop Res. 2006;24(12):2230-7. doi: 10.1002/jor.20299, PMID 17001708.

15. Ahmed RM. Evaluating the impacts of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) augmentation in osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures. Am J Med Sci Innov. 2024 May 15;3(1):96-106. doi: 10.54536/ajmsi.v3i1.2758.

16. Fidan F, Lapcin O. Outcomes of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures treated with cement augmented proximal femoral nail. J Surg Med. 2022;6(10):854-7. doi: 10.28982/josam.7445.

17. Kulachote N, Sa Ngasoongsong P, Sirisreetreerux N, Chulsomlee K, Thamyongkit S, Wongsak S. Predicting factors for return to prefracture ambulatory level in high surgical risk elderly patients sustained intertrochanteric fracture and treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) with and without cement augmentation. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020 Mar 12;11. doi: 10.1177/2151459320912121.

18. Mochizuki Y, Yamamoto N, Fujii T, Tomita Y. Effectiveness of cement augmentation on early postoperative mobility in patients treated for trochanteric fractures with cephalomedullary nailing: a prospective cohort study. J Pers Med. 2022 Aug 27;12(9):1392. doi: 10.3390/jpm12091392, PMID 36143177.

19. Keppler AM, Pfeufer D, Kau F, Linhart C, Zeckey C, Neuerburg C. Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation (PFNA) is associated with enhanced weight bearing in older adults. Injury. 2021 Oct 1;52(10):3042-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.037, PMID 33583593.

20. Kammerlander C, Hem ES, Klopfer T, Gebhard F, Sermon A, Dietrich M. Cement augmentation of the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Injury. 2018 Aug 1;49(8):1436-44. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022.

21. Kim SJ, Park HS, Lee DW, Lee JW. Is calcium phosphate augmentation a viable option for osteoporotic hip fractures? Osteoporos Int. 2018 Sep;29(9):2021-8. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4572-z.

22. Mattsson P, Larsson S. Unstable trochanteric fractures augmented with calcium phosphate cement: a prospective randomized study using radiostereometry to measure fracture stability. Scand J Surg. 2004;93(3):223-8. doi: 10.1177/145749690409300310.