What is the optimal salvage procedure for cut-out after surgical fixation of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA or TFN?: A multicentre study

PurposeTo evaluate the outcome after different types of revision operations for blade ‘cut-out’ and ‘cut-through’ after fixation of trochanteric fractures with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) or a trochanter fixation nail (TFN).MethodsTwenty hospitals participated in this multicentre study. A total of 4109 patients were retrospectively screened for cut-out or cut-through complications after nailing of trochanteric fractures using PFNA or TFN. Fifty-seven patients (28 with ‘cut-through’ and 29 with ‘cut-out’) were included in the study. In the ‘cut-through’ group, 16 patients underwent a blade exchange, six patients had a blade exchange with bone cement augmentation, and six received total hip arthroplasty (THA). In the ‘cut-out’ group, three patients had a blade exchange, one had a blade exchange with augmentation, three underwent re-nailing of the fracture with a new PFNA, one had a girdlestone procedure and 21 had THA procedures.ResultsIn the ‘cut-through’ group, eight patients who had a blade exchanges (50%) and two patients with blade exchange and augmentation (33%) required further revision operations. THA was the definite treatment in all 6 cases. In the ‘cut-out’ group, two patients (66%) who had blade exchanges and two (66%) who underwent re-nailing required additional revision operations during the subsequent course. One patient (4%) who had total hip arthroplasty needed revision surgery for acetabular replacement. Overall, a total of 81 revision procedures were performed.ConclusionBased on the data from this study, we recommend THA as the only valid salvage procedure for ‘cut-out’ and ‘cut-through’ of helical blades after fixation of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA and TFN.