Comparison of radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures treated using PFN and PFNA-2 in patients with osteoporosis

  • Sharan Mallya
  • Surendra U. KamathEmail author
  • Arkesh Madegowda
  • Sunil Lakshmipura Krishnamurthy
  • Manesh Kumar Jain
  • Ramesh Holla
Original Article • HIP - FRACTURES



Presently, unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures are treated commonly with intramedullary nailing devices. Various designs of intramedullary nail are introduced. The conventional Proximal Femoral Nail has given diverse outcome. Complications have also been noted with this implant. Newer designs like Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-2 have been introduced for Asian population. The aim of our study was to compare the radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture treated with conventional Proximal Femoral Nail and Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-2 in osteoporotic patients.

Materials and methods

Patients presenting with unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture (AO classification) and Singh’s index ≤ 3 were included. Patients were assigned to the groups based on the implant used for treatment (PFN and PFNA2 group). Post-operative radiographs were used to assess the quality of reduction, by calculating neck shaft angle. The quality of fixation was assessed, by calculating tip apex distance and Cleveland index. The duration of surgery, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic images taken and length of hospital stay were noted. Patients were followed up for 6 months, and complications were noted. The functional outcome was compared using modified Harris hip score. The data analysis was done using Student’s unpaired t test/Mann–Whitney U test and Chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered significant.


Seventy-eight patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures and Singh’s index < 3 were included. Thirty-seven were treated with PFNA2 and 41 with PFN. The average age in PFNA2 group was 69.51, and PFN group was 70.804. Nine patients in PFNA2 group and 10 patients in PFN group had tip apex distance more than 25 mm. Twelve patients in PFNA2 group and 14 Patients in PFN group had sub-optimal implant position as per Cleveland index. The difference in neck shaft angle between uninjured and operated side was more than 10° in four patients of PFNA2 group and seven patients of PFN group. The average Harris hip score was 74.55 for PFNA2 group and 69.88 for PFN group. Four complications were seen in PFNA2 group and 5 in PFN group.


The functional outcome (p = 0.102) achieved with both the implants was similar. Good functional outcome can be achieved, when the radiological parameters are restored, i.e. TAD < 25 mm, Cleveland index in centre–centre position and neck shaft angle difference < 5°. The overall complications, in the set-up of osteoporosis, seen with both the implants were similar (p = 0.44). PFNA2 group showed better results in terms of perioperative morbidity.


Intramedullary nailing Singh’s index Neck shaft angle Tip apex distance Cleveland index 



We are grateful for the help and support from KMC Mangalore and Manipal Academy of Higher Education in performing this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Babhulkar S (2006) Management of trochanteric fractures. Indian J Orthop 40(4):210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang K, Zhang S, Yang J, Dong W, Wang S, Cheng Y et al (2014) Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta- analysis. Med Sci Monit 20(1628–33):3Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dhamangaonkar AC (2015) Management options and treatment algorithm in intertrochanteric fractures. Trauma Int 1(1):12–16Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhakat U, Bandyopadhayay R (2013) Comparitive study between proximal femoral nailing and dynamic hip screw in intertrochanteric fracture of femur. Open J Orthop 3(7):291–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hohendorff B, Meyer P, Menezes D, Meier L, Elke R (2005) Treatment results and complications after PFN osteosynthesis. Unfallchirurg. 108(11):938, 940, 941–946 passimGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raviraj A, Anand A, Chakravarthy M, Pai S (2012) Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) for treatment of osteoporotic proximal femoral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 22:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strauss E, Frank J, Lee J, Kummer FJ, Tejwani N (2006) Helical blade versus sliding hip screw for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures. Biomech Eval Inj 37:984–989Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nikoloski AN, Osbrough AL, Yates PJ (2013) Should the tip-apex distance (TAD) rule be modified for the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA)? A retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res 8:35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kashid MR, Gogia T, Prabhakara A, Jafri MA, Shaktawat DS, Shinde G (2016) Comparative study between proximal femoral nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation in management of unstable trochanteric fractures. Int J Res Orthop 2:354–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sharma A, Mahajan A, John B (2017) A comparison of the clinico-radiological outcomes with proximal femoral nail (PFN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. J Clin Diagn Res 11(7):RC05–RC09Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardenbroek TJ, Segers MJ, Simmermacher RK, Hammacher ER (2011) The proximal femur nail antirotation: an identifiable improvement in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures? J Trauma 71:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar GNK, Sharma G, Khatri K, Farooque K, Lakhotia D, Sharma V et al (2015) Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures with proximal femoral nail antirotation ll: our experience in Indian patients. Open Orthop J 9:456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van Vugt AB (2001) Reliability of the AO/ASIF classification for pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72(1):36–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koot VC, Kesselaer SM, Clevers GJ, de Hooge P, Weits T, Van der Werken C (1996) Evaluation of the Singh index for measuring osteoporosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(5):831–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karapinar L, Kumbaraci M, Kaya A, Imrci A, Incesu M (2012) Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) to treat peritrochanteric fracture in elderly patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 22:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM (1995) The value of the tip apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1058–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cleveland M, Bosworth DM, Thompson FR, Wilson HJ Jr, Ishizuka T (1959) A ten-year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 41(A):1399–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vishwanathan K, Akbari K, Patel AJ (2018) Is the modified Harris hip score valid and responsive instrument for outcome assessment in the Indian population with pertrochanteric fractures? J Orthop 15(1):40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sadic S, Custovic S, Jasarevic M, Fazlic M, Smajic N (2014) Proximal femoral nail antirotation in treatment of fractures of proximal femur. Med Arch 68:172–177Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zeng C, Wang YR, Wei J, Gao SG, Zhang FJ, Sun ZQ et al (2012) Treatment of trochanteric fractures with proximal femoral nail antirotation or dynamic hip screw systems: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res 40(3):839–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takigami I, Matsumoto K, Ohara A, Yamanaka K, Naganawa T, Ohashi M et al (2008) Treatment of trochanteric fractures with the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) nail system—report of early result. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 66(4):276–279Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li M, Wu L, Liu Y, Wang C (2014) Clinical evaluation of the Asian proximal femur intramedullary nail antirotation system (PFNA-II) for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 9:112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li J, Cheng L, Jing J (2015) The Asia proximal femoral nail antirotation versus the standard proximal femoral antirotation nail for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly Chinese patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101(2):143–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xie H, Chen S, Zhou B (2015) Comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation-II and proximal femoral nail antirotation in fixation of femoral intertrochanteric fracture. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 95(29):2346–2350Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Loo WL, Loh SYJ, Lee HC (2011) Review of proximal nail antirotation (PFNA) and PFNA-2-our local experience. Malays Orthop J. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hu SJ, Chang SM, Ma Z, Du SC, Xiong LP, Wang X (2016) PFNA-ll protrusion over greater trochanter in the Asian population used in proximal femoral fractures. Indian J Orthop 50(6):641–646. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kammerlander C, Hem ES, Klopfer T, Gebhard F, Sermon A, Dietrich M et al (2018) Cement augmentation of the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA)—a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Injury. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharan Mallya
    • 1
  • Surendra U. Kamath
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arkesh Madegowda
    • 1
  • Sunil Lakshmipura Krishnamurthy
    • 1
  • Manesh Kumar Jain
    • 1
  • Ramesh Holla
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics, Kasturba Medical College, MangaloreManipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE)ManipalIndia
  2. 2.Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, MangaloreManipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE)ManipalIndia

Personalised recommendations