Comparative Study of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation Versus the Reconstruction Nail in the Treatment of Comminuted Proximal Femoral Fracture

The purpose of our study was to compare the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA; Synthes, Paoli, Pennsylvania) with a reconstruction nail (Recon; Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) in the treatment of comminuted proximal femoral fractures. Between 2003 and 2010, twenty-three consecutive patients with AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association 31-A3 fractures combined with proximal 32 fractures who had a minimum 18-month follow-up were evaluated retrospectively. There were 10 patients (age range, 18–74 years) in the Recon nail group and 13 patients (age range, 22–90 years) in the PFNA nail group. Patients treated with Recon nails experienced a longer operation time ( P =.006) and more blood loss ( P =.012) than patients treated with the PFNA nail. On postoperative radiographs, the change in the neck-shaft angle was 8.8° in the Recon nail group and 4.7° in the PFNA nail group ( P =.048). The fracture union time averaged 31.8 weeks in the Recon nail group and 21.5 weeks in the PFNA nail group ( P =.148). More patients in the Recon nail group underwent major or minor reoperation ( P =.038) compared with the PFNA nail group. No implant failure occurred in either group. The functional results were similar in the 2 groups. For the treatment of comminuted proximal femoral fractures, use of either the PFNA and Recon nail is clinically effective. However, the PFNA nail provides a shorter operation time, less blood loss, and better realignment ability and reduces the incidence of reoperation. Therefore, the PFNA nail can be considered a better device than the Recon nail.