Proximal femoral nail failures in extracapsular fractures of the hip

PURPOSE. To review patients with proximal femoral nails (PFNs) in our hospital that developed complications and needed revision. METHODS. Between January 2000 and June 2006, records of 216 patients with PFN fixations for traumatic extracapsular trochanteric fractures (n=160), pathological fractures (n=23), and as a prophylactic measure for metastasis (n=33) were retrospectively reviewed. The injury mechanism, reduction technique and quality, and time to and cause of implant failure were recorded. RESULTS. 12 PFNs failed: 8 in the trauma group, 3 in the pathological group, and one in the prophylactic nailing group. Two PFNs broke at the proximal lag screw level at a later stage secondary to non-union of the pathological fractures. One broke at the level of the distal locking screw at an early stage, as the locking holes were too close to the fracture. CONCLUSION. Poorly reduced fractures tend to fail early, whereas late failures are due to non-union. Good reduction with minimal dissection, the use of appropriate nail length, and proper positioning of the nail and screws are necessary to avoid failure or revision.     

Treatment options for unstable trochanteric fractures: Screw or helical proximal femoral nail

Purpose: To compare treatment outcome of screw proximal femoral nail (PFN) system with that of a helical PFN. Methods: The study included 77 patients with closed unstable intertrochanteric fracture classified as AO 31A2 & 31A3, between June 2008 to August 2011. Inclusion criteria were: all mature skeletons above 50 years of age; closed unstable trochanteric fracture classified as AO 31A2 & A3. Exclusion criteria were: immature skeleton, pathological fracture of any cause other than osteoporosis, inability to walk independently prior to injury. Patients were randomized to 2 treatment groups based on admission sequence. Forty patients were treated with screw PFN and thirty seven were treated with helical PFN. Results: Both groups were similar in respect of time of surgery, blood loss and functional assessment and duration of hospitalization. In screw PFN group 2 patients had superficial wound infection, 1 patient had persistent hip pain and 1 patient had shortening >1 cm but <2 cm, while in helical PFN group 1 patient had superficial wound infection. Conclusion: Both screw and helical PFN are very effective implants in osteoporotic and unstable trochanteric fractures even in Indian patients where the bones are narrow and neck diameter is small. It is an implant of choice for osteoporotic and unstable trochanteric fractures.     

Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail

The proximal femoral nail (PFN) is a recently introduced intramedullary system, designed to improve treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures of the hip. In a multicentre prospective clinical study, the intra-operative use, complications and outcome of treatment using the PFN (n = 211) were compared with those using the gamma nail (GN) (n = 213). The intra-operative blood loss was lower with the PFN (220 ml v 287 ml, p = 0.001). Post-operatively, more lateral protrusion of the hip screws of the PFN (7.6%) was documented, compared with the gamma nail (1.6%, p = 0.02). Most local complications were related to suboptimal reduction of the fracture and/or positioning of the implant. Functional outcome and consolidation were equal for both implants. Generally, the results of treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures were comparable for the PFN and GN. The pitfalls and complications were similar, and mainly surgeon- or fracture-related, rather than implant-related.     

A comparative study of unstable per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with dynamic hip screw (DHS) and trochanteric butt-press plate vs. proximal femoral nail (PFN)

The aim of the present paper is to compare the results obtained using two osteosynthesis systems developed for the surgical treatment of unstable fractures of the trochanteric region of the femur: the proximal femoral nail (PFN) and the dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric butt-press plate (TBPP). From December 1997 to November 2000, 173 patients with instable trochanteric fractures (type 31 A-2 and A-3 according to the AO-classification) had osteosynthesis by PFN (n = 122) or DHS/TBPP (n = 51). The average patient age was 74 years (range 27 to 98). No significant differences between the two study groups were observed with regard to age, sex, and rate of fracture types. At an average follow-up of 17 months the radiological and clinical outcome according to the score of "Merle d'Aubigné" was analysed in 61 % of all patients. All fractures were healed with no difference in functional outcome between the two groups. In the case of PFN 17.2 % revisions were necessary and in the case of DHS with TBPP 21.6 %. A shorter operation time (43 vs. 61 min) and a considerable shorter in-patient stay (20 vs. 24 days) were common with PFN. Full-weight-bearing immediately after the osteosynthesis was possible for 98 % of the PFN patients and 81 % of the DHS/TBPP patients. The DHS/TBPP osteosynthesis in instable trochanteric fractures is associated with a higher incidence of complications. Therefore we recommend to treat instable fractures of the trochanteric region with the PFN.     

Screw versus helical proximal femoral nail in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures in the elderly

PurposeComparison of clinical, radiological and functional outcomes of screw proximal femoral nail (PFN) and helical PFN in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.MethodsThis prospective randomised comparative study included 60 patients with closed unstable intertrochanteric fractures (AO classification-A2.2–A2.3 & A3.1–A3.3). Patients were randomised to 2 treatment groups using simple random sampling method utilizing computer based randomisation. Screw PFN and helical PFN were used for internal fixation with 30 patients in each group.ResultsBoth groups were similar in respect of age, gender, fracture classification, quality of fracture reduction, duration of hospitalization, post-operative complications, residual/late deformity as well as functional assessment. However, mean duration of surgery was significantly lower (23.1%) in helical PFN group as compared to screw PFN group (43.32 ± 8.20 min vs. 35.20 ± 6.03 min, p < 0.001). Furthermore, mean blood loss was not significant in either of the study groups but it was significantly lesser (30.1%) in helical PFN group as compared to screw PFN group (77.80 ± 17.39 ml vs. 59.80 ± 14.96 ml, p < 0.001). Also, mean number of images taken was significantly lower (58.7%) in helical PFN group as compared to screw PFN group (29.52 ± 4.85 no vs. 18.60 ± 3.12 no, t = 9.47; p < 0.001).ConclusionBoth screw PFN and helical PFN are equally effective implants in internal fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in any of the outcome measures. However, helical PFN group fared marginally better in terms of operative time, blood loss and imaging required.     

Stabilisation of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures. Dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate vs. proximal femur nail (PFN)

The dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate (TSP) as the extramedullary power transmission system and the proximal femur nail (PFN) as the means of intramedullary stabilisation are both standard in the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures in the case of old people. A total of 129 patients (average age: 81,5 years) with 31 A2.2 and A2.3 as well as per-/subtrochanteric femoral fractures were treated by means of osteosynthesis with DHS and TSP (n=64) or with PFN (n=65),and the results plotted in a retro-/prospective study. At low complication rates, the radiological operation results are equally good. 6 revisions were necessary in the case of the DHS with TSP and 4 in the case of PFN. A significantly shorter operation time (44.3 vs. 57.3 min) and a considerably shorter in-patient stay (18.6 vs. 21.3 days) were common with PFN. The application of full-weightbearing immediately after the operation was possible for 97% of the PFN patients and 88% of the DHS patients. In a follow-up 6 months after the operation, the PFN patients displayed a significantly lower pain intensity in the operated leg at the same score for ambulation and the same subjective degree of satisfaction. Unstable pertrochanteric and per-/subtrochanteric femoral comminuted fractures can be treated just as well with PFN as with DHS and TSP. Our study results,however, lead us to recommend treatment with PFN.     

The trochanteric nail versus the sliding hip screw for intertrochanteric hip fractures: a review of 93 cases

BACKGROUND: The trochanteric nail, a redesigned short gamma nail, (Howmedica, Rutherford, NJ) was introduced in the United States during 1998 for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 93 patients who were treated for an intertrochanteric fracture with either a sliding hip screw (SHS) or the short trochanteric nail (TN). RESULTS: In all, 94% of the patients in the sliding hip screw group healed without complication. There was one case of femoral head necrosis, one lag screw cutout, and one hardware removal for pain. Eighty-nine percent of the patients in the trochanteric nail group healed without complication. There was one late fracture at the tip of the nail, three cases of lag screw cutout, and one nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the trochanteric nail is a reasonable alternative to the sliding hip screw when used for intertrochanteric fractures, although it may be associated with higher complication rates.     

The treatment of unstable,extracapsular hip fractures with the AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN)--our first 60 cases

The most widely used implant in unstable proximal femoral fractures is the dynamic hip screw (DHS). Intramedullary implants include the intramedullary hip screw (IHMS), gamma nail and proximal femoral nail (PFN). There have not yet been any randomised trials comparing the PFN and DHS. We report our experience of stabilising 60 consecutive proximal femoral fractures with the PFN. Fifty fractures were unstable trochanteric fractures, seven were subtrochanteric (32A), one segmental, and two were at the level of a DHS plate. The mean age was 79 years and there were 12 male and 48 female patients. Twenty-eight patients were graded as ASA 3 or 4. Two patients had multiple injuries, all fractures were closed and there were five pathological fractures. The patients were followed up for a minimum of 4 months. Within this period, there were 12 deaths due to cardiopulmonary complications. Of the remaining 48 patients, two were lost to follow-up and 39 had united by 4 months. The local complications were: four implant cut-outs, two high energy fractures below the implants and one implant failure at 7 months due to delayed union. We believe that the PFN is a good choice for stabilising subtrochanteric fractures. We also believe that the use of the PFN for unstable trochanteric fractures is very encouraging. A large, randomised controlled trial against the DHS would be helpful to clarify the relative risks and benefits.     

More postoperative femoral fractures with the Gamma nail than the sliding screw plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures

Despite several studies showing a higher incidence of peri-implant femoral fractures with the Gamma nail than with a sliding screw plate (SSP), the Gamma nail has remained the standard implant for trochanteric fractures in many hospitals.

We recorded 921 trochanteric fractures in the city of Oslo during 2 years and compared the reoperation frequency in patients treated with the Gamma nail (n 379) and SSP (n 542). The distribution of age and gender in the two treatment groups was the same. 65 patients were reoperated on, several of them more than once. The only significant difference between the two surgical methods in complications leading to a reoperation was the frequency of femoral shaft fractures. 17 of the patients treated with the Gamma nail had a new femoral fracture postoperatively, compared to 3 of those with a SSP. The relative risk of another femoral fracture after surgery was 12 (95% CI: 2.7-52) if the surgical device was a Gamma nail compared to a SSP.The Gamma nail therefore can not be recommended as the standard implant for trochanteric fractures.     

More postoperative femoral fractures with the Gamma nail than the sliding screw plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures

Despite several studies showing a higher incidence of peri-implant femoral fractures with the Gamma nail than with a sliding screw plate (SSP), the Gamma nail has remained the standard implant for trochanteric fractures in many hospitals. We recorded 921 trochanteric fractures in the city of Oslo during 2 years and compared the reoperation frequency in patients treated with the Gamma nail (n 379) and SSP (n 542). The distribution of age and gender in the two treatment groups was the same. 65 patients were reoperated on, several of them more than once. The only significant difference between the two surgical methods in complications leading to a reoperation was the frequency of femoral shaft fractures. 17 of the patients treated with the Gamma nail had a new femoral fracture postoperatively, compared to 3 of those with a SSP. The relative risk of another femoral fracture after surgery was 12 (95 % CI: 2.7-52) if the surgical device was a Gamma nail compared to a SSP. The Gamma nail therefore can not be recommended as the standard implant for trochanteric fractures.     

More postoperative femoral fractures with the Gamma nail than the sliding screw plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures

Despite several studies showing a higher incidence of peri-implant femoral fractures with the Gamma nail than with a sliding screw plate (SSP), the Gamma nail has remained the standard implant for trochanteric fractures in many hospitals. We recorded 921 trochanteric fractures in the city of Oslo during 2 years and compared the reoperation frequency in patients treated with the Gamma nail (n 379) and SSP (n 542). The distribution of age and gender in the two treatment groups was the same. 65 patients were reoperated on, several of them more than once. The only significant difference between the two surgical methods in complications leading to a reoperation was the frequency of femoral shaft fractures. 17 of the patients treated with the Gamma nail had a new femoral fracture postoperatively, compared to 3 of those with a SSP. The relative risk of another femoral fracture after surgery was 12 (95% CI: 2.7-52) if the surgical device was a Gamma nail compared to a SSP.The Gamma nail therefore can not be recommended as the standard implant for trochanteric fractures.     

Functional outcome in treatment of unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures with the proximal femoral nail and the Medoff sliding plate

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcome between the proximal femoral nail (PFN) and the Medoff sliding plate (MSP) in patients with unstable trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures. METHODS: This was a consecutive prospective randomized clinical study. In all, 203 patients admitted to two university hospitals with an unstable trochanteric or a subtrochanteric fracture type were included. Surgery was performed with a short intramedullary nail or a dual-sliding plate device. Follow up visits occurred at 6 weeks, 4 months, and 12 months. Functional outcome was measured by walking ability, rising from a chair, curb test, and additional assessments of abductor strength, pain, living conditions, and complications. RESULTS: The ability to walk 15 m at 6 weeks was significantly better in the PFN group compared to the MSP group with an odds ratio 2.2 (P = 0.04, 95% confidence limits 1.03-4.67). No statistical difference in walking ability could be found between trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. The major complication rate (8% in the PFN group and 4% in the MSP group) did not differ statistically (P = 0.50) but reoperations were more frequent in the PFN group (9%) compared to the MSP group (1%; P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There were no major differences in functional outcome or major complications between the treatment groups. Reasons other than the operated fracture seem to be equally important in determining the long-term functional ability of the patients in our study. An advantage with the MSP was the lower reoperation rate.     

The new technique of precise insertion of lag screw in an operative treatment of trochanteric femoral fractures with a short intramedullary nail

In order to reduce the incidence of cut-out, which is one of the serious postoperative complications of trochanteric femoral fractures, we paid special attention to the placement of lag screw in the femoral head. As a result, we devised a new technique that allows insertion of the lag screw at the first attempt into the optimal position on both planes, inferior half on the antero-posterior view and exactly central on the lateral view, without the need for any special devices other than the basic original set, using a trochanteric nail.For this technique, we have evaluated the proximal femoral profile under image intensifier, on the true lateral view projected parallel to the axis of the femoral neck and not on the conventional lateral view (Lauenstein view) with the projection parallel to the axis of the femoral shaft in a coronal plane.With the X-ray beam lying in the same plane with the targeting device including the nail and the guide sleeve, the guide pin is intended to pass through the guide sleeve and the middle of shadow of the proximal end of the targeting device, so that it can be inserted in the optimal position without fail, aligned with the middle axis of the femoral head.The deviation angle between the axes of the lag screw and the femoral head was measured on every postoperative lateral radiograph. The mean deviation angle of 1.6° in the 39 fractures after the introduction of the new insertion technique was compared with 4.8° in the 44 fractures before the introduction, which showed a significant difference between these groups (p < 0.0001, Welch's t-test).When the lag screw can be placed exactly in the centre of the femoral head on the true lateral view, it can be set forward as closest to articular surfaces as possible on the postero-anterior view without a risk of penetration, so that the tip-apex distance could be easily achieved under 20 mm, which leads to a reduction of postoperative cut-outs.This technique can be applied in other similar trochanteric nails, which gives them an advantage over the sliding hip screws.     

The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture

The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) is a new device designed for the treatment of the unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. This study reports the outcome in such fractures treated using the PFN at a District General Hospital. All patients presenting to our department with unstable trochanteric femoral fractures were treated operatively using the PFN. A total of 76 patients were included in the study and were followed up to fracture union or fixation failure. A case documentation form and follow-up form were used to collect the data which included the Salvati and Wilson assessment of hip function. The majority of the procedures were reported by the operating surgeon as "easy" or "usual". Distal locking was difficult in three patients. In one patient, the fixation failed because the screws were wrongly positioned and was revised to a THR. Mortality rate, during the first 3 months, was 27%. Of the surviving patients, screws cut through the femoral head in four patients (8%), however, fractures united in all the patients. There was one incidence of fracture around the tip of the nail. Seventy-eight percent of the patients at the final follow-up scored >20 points (out of 40 points), using the Salvati and Wilson hip function scoring system. According to the patients and/or their carers, outcome was described as good or very good in 94% of the patients and the level of function was similar to pre-injury level in 50% of the patients. We conclude that the PFN is a useful device in the treatment of the unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. It is a relatively easy procedure and a biomechanically stable construct allowing early weight bearing. Femoral neck screws positioning is critical.     

In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device

Background:

The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance of intramedullary single screw device (Gamma nail) and double screw device proximal femoral nail (PFN) in unstable trochanteric fractures in terms of the number of cycles sustained, subsidence and implant failure in an axial loading test in cadaveric femora.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted on 18 dry cadaveric femoral specimens, 9 of these were implanted with a Gamma nail and 9 with PFN. There was no significant difference found in average dual energy X-ray absorptiometry value between both groups. The construct was made unstable (AO type 31A3.3) by removing a standard sized posteromedial wedge. These were tested on a cyclic physiological loading machine at 1 cycle/s with a load of 200 kg. The test was observed for 50,000 loading cycles or until implant failure, whichever occurred earlier. Peak displacements were measured and analysis was done to determine construct stiffness and gap micromotion in axial loading.

Result:

It was observed that there was statistically significant difference in terms of displacement at the fracture gap and overall construct stiffness of specimens of both groups. PFN construct group showed a mean subsidence of 1.02 mm and Gamma nail construct group showed mean subsidence of 2.36 mm after cycling. The average stiffness of Gamma nail group was 62.8 ± 8.4 N/mm which was significantly lower than average stiffness of the PFN group (80.4 ± 5.9 N/mm) (P = 0.03). In fatigue testing, 1 out of 9 PFN bone construct failed, while 5 of 9 Gamma nail bone construct failed.

Conclusion:

When considering micromotion (subsidence) and incidence of implant/screw failure, double screw device (PFN) had statistically significant lower micromotion across the fracture gap with axial compression and lower incidence of implant failure. Hence, double screw device (PFN) construct had higher stability compared to single screw device (GN) in an unstable trochanteric fracture femur model.     

Comparison of cutout resistance of dynamic condylar screw and proximal femoral nail in reverse oblique trochanteric fractures: A biomechanical study

Background:

Reverse oblique trochanteric fracture of femur is a distinct fracture pattern. 95° Dynamic condylar screw (DCS) and proximal femoral nail (PFN) are currently the most commonly used implants for its fixation. This study aims to biomechanically compare the cutout resistance as well as modes of failure of DCS and PFN in reverse oblique trochanteric fractures.

Materials and Methods:

Sixteen freshly harvested cadaveric proximal femoral specimens were randomly assigned to three mean bone mineral density matched groups, eight of which were implanted with 95° DCS and the other eight with PFN. The constructs were made unstable to resemble a reverse oblique trochanteric fracture by removing a standard size posteromedial wedge. These constructs were subjected to computer controlled cyclic compressive loading with 200 kg at a frequency of 1 cycle/second (1 Hz) and end points of both the groups were analyzed.

Results:

The bending moment of the PFN group was approximately 50% less than that of the DCS group (P<0.0001). The PFN group resisted more number of cycles than the DCS group (P=0.03) and showed lesser number of component failures as compared with the DCS group (P=0.003).

Conclusions:

The PFN is biomechanically superior to DCS for the fixation of reverse oblique trochanteric fractures of femur.     

Trochanteric fracture-implant motion during healing – A radiostereometry (RSA) study

Cut-out complication remains a major unsolved problem in the treatment of trochanteric hip fractures. A better understanding of the three-dimensional fracture-implant motions is needed to enable further development of clinical strategies and countermeasures. The aim of this clinical study was to characterise and quantify three-dimensional motions between the implant and the bone and between the lag screw and nail of the Gamma nail.Radiostereometry Analysis (RSA) analysis was applied in 20 patients with trochanteric hip fractures treated with an intramedullary nail. The following three-dimensional motions were measured postoperatively, at 1 week, 3, 6 and 12 months: translations of the tip of the lag screw in the femoral head, motions of the lag screw in the nail, femoral head motions relative to the nail and nail movements in the femoral shaft.Cranial migration of the tip of the lag screw dominated over the other two translation components in the femoral head. In all fractures the lag screw slid laterally in the nail and the femoral head moved both laterally and inferiorly towards the nail. All femoral heads translated posteriorly relative to the nail, and rotations occurred in both directions with median values close to zero. The nail tended to retrovert in the femoral shaft.Adverse fracture-implant motions were detected in stable trochanteric hip fractures treated with intramedullary nails with high resolution. Therefore, RSA method can be used to evaluate new implant designs and clinical strategies, which aim to reduce cut-out complications. Future RSA studies should aim at more unstable fractures as these are more likely to fail with cut-out.     

Gamma nail vs compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures: 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients

A total of 378 trochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral fractures were randomized to treatment with Gamma nail (177) or Hip Compression Screw (HCS) (201). After a median follow-up time of 17 (10-27) months, 15 patients needed reoperations; 13 had been treated with Gamma nail and 2 with HCS. 10 patients, all treated with Gamma nail, were reoper-ated because of a femoral shaft fracture. 5 of these fractures occurred 8 (4-10) days postoperatively and were related to intraoperative complications. The other 5 shaft fractures occurred a median of 2 (1-3) months postoperatively after falls, and may be related to stress concentration at the tip of the solid nail. The lag screw cut out or penetrated the femoral head in 5 patients, 3 of them treated with Gamma nail and 2 with HCS.     

Trochanteric fractures in the elderly: the influence of primary hip arthroplasty on 1-year mortality

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare the mortality risk and complication rate after operative treatment of pertrochanteric fractures with primary arthroplasty, dynamic hip screw (DHS) or proximal femoral nail (PFN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical records including X-rays of all patients with trochanteric femoral fractures, except pathologic fractures and a minimum age of 60 years, which were treated between 1992 and 2005 were entered in this retrospective study. Of these 283 patients, 132 were treated by primary arthroplasty, 109 with a DHS and 42 with a PFN. Survival after 1 year and complications, which had to be treated within this period were our main outcome measurement. Influencing cofactors such as age, gender and comorbidities were reduced by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Mortality was significantly influenced by age, gender and amount of comorbidities but not by fracture classification. Primary hip arthroplasty did not bear a higher 1-year mortality risk than osteosynthesis in a multiple regression analysis. The main complication with DHS and PFN were cutting out of the hip screw and non-union with a revision rate of 12.8%. With the introduction of hemiarthroplasty, the postoperative dislocation rate decreased from 12 to 0%. CONCLUSION: For stable fractures a dynamic hip screw (DHS) and for unstable fractures a short proximal femoral nail (PFN) can be recommended. The mortality risk of primary cemented arthroplasty did not differ significantly from the other treatment groups and because of its low complication rate it is a viable treatment option for trochanteric fractures if osteoporosis prevents from full weight bearing or if osteoarthritis makes further operations likely. Primary total hip replacement should be handled with care due to its significantly higher dislocation rate compared with hemiarthroplasty especially in unstable fractures.     

A comparative study of trochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail or the proximal femoral nail

The aim of the present paper is to compare the results obtained using two osteosynthesis systems developed for the surgical treatment of fractures of the trochanteric region of the femur, based on the principles of closed intramedullary nailing: the Gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail (PFN). A prospective study is presented of 125 trochanteric fractures of the femur treated with PFN and 125 treated with the Gamma nail in our service between the years 1997 and 2000, with the prerequisite of a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Fractures were classified according to the AO system, the most commonly recorded subtype encountered being the A2. Clinical and radiographic controls were performed upon admission and in the post-operative follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, the corresponding assessment protocol being completed on each occasion. Of the 250 patients, 179 were women and the rest men. The average age was 78.9 years. Both systems enabled early mobilisation and walking in most of our patients. There were no significant differences in the use of either nail in terms of the recovery of previous functional capacity, nor in terms of the time required for fracture healing (12 weeks on average). With regard to the more significant technical complications recorded, shaft fractures and the cutting-out phenomenon were more common with the use of the Gamma nail, while secondary varus occurred at a greater rate when using the PFN.