ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021
Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation: is it safe?
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Augmentation in fragility fractures, bone of contention: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Indications for cement augmentation in fixation of geriatric intertrochanteric femur fractures: a systematic review of evidence.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Cement augmentation of internal fixation for trochanteric fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Pooled it
- The clinical efficacy of Medial Sustain Nail(MSN) and Proximal femoral nail anti-rotation(PFNA) for fixation of medial comminuted trochanteric fractures: a prospective randomized controlled trial.International orthopaedics · 2024Trial
- Osteonecrosis of femoral head after cement augmented TFNA nailing for an intertrochanteric fracture: A case report.Trauma case reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of trochanteric femoral nail advanced system (TFNA) with and without cement augmentation for geriatric unstable trochanteric fractures: a single-center retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Safety of Cement-augmented Femoral Cephalomedullary Nails: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.Hip & pelvis · 2025Review
- Finite element study on the micromechanics of cement-augmented proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) for intertrochanteric fracture treatment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- [Augmentation techniques for the treatment of osteoporosis-associated fractures of the extremities].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Micro-Structural and Biomechanical Evaluation of Bioresorbable and Conventional Bone Cements for Augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Blade Augmentation in Nailing Proximal Femur Fractures-An Advantage despite Higher Costs?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- [Augmentation in the treatment of proximal humeral and femoral fractures].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Clinical Analysis of Surgical Treatment of Senile Intertrochanteric Fracture Based on Intelligent Knowledge of Health Care.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Mechanical testing of cephalomedullary nail lag screws after the addition of hydroxyapatite substitutes.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation (PFNA; Fa. DePuy Synthes) showed good biomechanical and clinical results regarding increased stability and functional outcome [Linden et al. in J Orthop Res 24:2230-2237, 2006;Kammerlander et al. in Injury 49:1436-1444, 2018;]. Cement-associated complications are well known in orthopedic procedures like hip arthroplasty, vertebra- and kyphoplasty. This study investigates outcome and safety of augmentation of the proximal femur nail blade. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe retrospective review of the 299 patients (mean age 80 ± 13 years; 205 women and 94 men) focused on perioperative complications after augmentation which was performed with Traumacem V+ Cement (Fa. DePuy Synthes) in 152 cases. The decision for augmentation of the blade was made by the attending surgeon and based on the factors age, bone quality, and fracture pattern. Primary outcome measures were changes in blood pressure, heart rate or oxygen saturation, and the number of needed vasoactive drugs during augmentation. Secondary outcome measures where the rate of cement leakage into the joint, mechanical failure, and perioperative complications like pulmonary embolism, stroke, or heart attack.
resultsIn 152 augmented cases, no leakage of cement into the joint could be detected. No signs of mechanical failure like cut-out of the blade were seen after 6 weeks and 3 months. Also, augmentation did not show a higher rate of mortality or postoperative complications like stroke, heart attack, embolism, or infection. 57 of 152 augmented cases received an intraoperative intervention with vasoactive medication at the time of augmentation either prophylactically or because of a blood pressure fall. Out of the non-augmented cases, 21 of 147 needed vasoactive medication in the second half of the operation. The difference between these groups was significant (p < 0.05). In the cases without an intervention, there was a significant blood pressure fall of about 8 ± 7.4 mmHg during the augmentation (p < 0.001). Still, none of the augmented cases showed a change in heart rate or oxygen saturation.
conclusionThe augmentation of the PFNA blade proved to be a safe procedure. Cement augmentation will not increase postoperative complications or mortality. The risk for leakage of cement into the joint is low and mechanical cut-out might be prevented. The decision for augmentation should be made carefully and always be declared loud and in advance to allow the anesthetist to prepare, because blood pressure changes can occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.