Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Proximal femoral fractures are a major cause of hospitalization and disability worldwide (1). They are commonly seen among elderly patients after low-energy trauma and in younger adults after high-energy injuries and represent a major challenge in orthopaedic management (2) (3).
These fractures pose unique biomechanical challenges because of axial compression, bending forces and the strong muscle pull that leads to flexion, abduction and external rotation of the proximal fragment (4). Operative management aims to restore anatomical alignment and length to allow early mobilization and weight bearing (5).
Intramedullary devices are widely considered the preferred option for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures, including both stable and unstable types. Their biomechanical advantages include a shorter lever arm, load sharing properties, reduced bending forces, prevention of proximal fragment lateral migration, nearing to the weight-bearing axis, supporting the medial calcar, and allowance for controlled impaction. Clinically, intramedullary nails are also associated with shorter operative time, less soft tissue dissection, reduced blood loss, and earlier mobilization, leading to improved functional outcomes (6-10).
The integrity of the lateral trochanteric wall plays a crucial role in construct stability by serving as a lateral buttress. Loss of this support results in uncontrolled collapse, medialization of the femoral shaft, excessive varus deformity, and limb shortening (11-12). In a cadaveric investigation, Nie et al. (13) reported that the proximal femoral nail provides adequate support to the medial wall but fails to sufficiently stabilize the lateral wall. Furthermore, clinical evidence has shown that approximately 22% of patients with lateral wall disruption required re-operation due to unsatisfactory initial fixation (14).
To address these challenges, recent studies have proposed combined fixation using an intramedullary nail augmented with a lateral plate, aiming to enhance stability, prevent varus collapse, and improve clinical outcomes in complex proximal femoral fractures (15).
However, evidence supporting this combined approach remains limited, with most available studies being small in scale and heterogeneous. Therefore, reporting outcomes from a case series may provide valuable insights into the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of combined nail-plate fixation, and may serve as a foundation for future comparative studies.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nail plate construct | Active Comparator | Combined intramedullary nail and lateral plate fixation for proximal femoral fractures with lateral wall deficiency. The construct includes a proximal femoral nail (PFN) augmented by a dynamic compression plate (DCP) to enhance stability and maintain reduction. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proximal femoral nail with lateral plate augmentation | Procedure | Surgical fixation using a proximal femoral nail (PFN) augmented with a dynamic compression plate (DCP). Standard lateral approach; fracture reduction under fluoroscopy; temporary K-wires; plate applied to maintain reduction; PFN inserted and locked; layered closure over suction drain. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Radiographic assessment of fracture alignment | Radiographic assessment of fracture alignment and implant position on AP and lateral long-film femur radiographs at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. CT will be performed at 6 months if indicated. | 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Time to union | Months from surgery to radiographic union on serial imaging. | Up to 6 months |
| Implant failure | Any mechanical failure unplanned return to OR. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Harris Hip Score (HHS) | The Harris Hip Score is a clinician-reported outcome assessing hip pain and function. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better hip function. | 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months |
| Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain |
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdelraoof Ali Mohamed Ali Morsy, Resident orthopedic surgeon | Contact | 01221350719 | Abdou.ali401.5@gmail.com |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005264 | Femoral Fractures |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D050723 | Fractures, Bone |
| D014947 | Wounds and Injuries |
| D007869 | Leg Injuries |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| Up to 6 months |
| Complications | Surgical and medical adverse events recorded prospectively. | Intraoperative to 6 months |
Pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale. Scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst imaginable pain.
| 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months |
| Short Form-36 (SF-36) | The Short Form-36 assesses health-related quality of life across eight domains. Each domain is scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health-related quality of life. | 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months |