Background/Objectives: Anterior redisplacement, defined as a postoperative anterior shift of the distal fragment despite intraoperative reduction, is occasionally observed after cephalomedullary nailing for trochanteric femoral fractures. However, its incidence and associated risk factors remain unclear. This study aimed to determine the incidence of anterior redisplacement following intramedullary nail fixation in geriatric trochanteric fractures, and to identify independent risk factors. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed data from 598 consecutive hips in 577 patients (aged ≥65 years) who underwent intramedullary nail fixation for trochanteric fractures at a single center (2012–2023). Sagittal reduction on the lateral radiographic view was classified as posterior, anatomical, or anterior according to the position of the distal fragment, and was recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. Anterior redisplacement, the primary outcome, was defined as a change in alignment from a posterior or anatomical position postoperatively to an anterior position on any subsequent follow-up radiograph. Independent risk factors were identified by logistic regression. Results: Among the 543 hips reduced posteriorly (n = 204) or anatomically (n = 339), anterior redisplacement occurred in 73 (13.4%). The incidence of anterior redisplacement was significantly higher following anatomical compared to posterior reduction (19.5% vs. 3.4%; p < 0.001), and also higher in fractures that were anteriorly aligned preoperatively (18.0%) compared to anatomical (8.5%; p < 0.01) and posterior (6.2%; p < 0.01) alignment. Multivariate analysis revealed two independent predictors: preoperative anterior alignment (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24–2.81; p = 0.003) and postoperative anatomical (vs. posterior) reduction (OR 6.49, 95% CI 2.92–14.44; p < 0.001). Age, sex, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, Evans–Jensen classification, nail length, and canal-filling ratio were not associated with redisplacement. No lag-screw cutout occurred during the follow-up. Conclusions: Anterior redisplacement occurred in one of seven geriatric trochanteric fractures despite apparently satisfactory fixation. An anatomical sagittal reduction—traditionally considered “ideal”—increases the risk more than sixfold, whereas a deliberate posterior-buttress is protective. Unlike patient-related risk factors, sagittal reduction is under the surgeon’s control. The study findings provide evidence that choosing a slight posterior bias can significantly improve stability.

Background/Objectives: Cement augmentation of cephalomedullary head elements can improve the purchase of osteoporotic bone; however, it does not eliminate the need for accurate implant positioning or the preservation of sliding. We report the case of an 87-year-old woman who underwent intramedullary nailing with a cement-augmented helical blade for intertrochanteric fracture. Methods: This is a single-patient case report. Calibrated radiographic measurements—tip–apex distance (TAD), calcar-referenced TAD (CalTAD), neck–shaft angle (NSA), and telescoping—were obtained immediately postoperatively and at 4, 7, 12, and 15 months. CT was performed at postoperative week 1 and at failure, and MRI was performed for clinical deterioration. In addition, a targeted narrative review summarizes the evidence on the head-element position, sliding behavior, reduction alignment, and augmentation. Results: Immediate postoperative indices were within the accepted targets: TAD 22.6 mm, CalTAD 22.8 mm, NSA 134°, with the head element inferior on the anteroposterior view and central on the lateral view. Rehabilitation proceeded with full weight bearing as tolerated. Early telescoping was minimal (3.8–3.9 mm). Between 7 and 15 months, progressive varus with shortening of TAD/CalTAD and little additional telescoping was observed, radiographically consistent with relative proximal migration of the head–cement complex and a cleavage plane along the inferior cement mantle, culminating in a subcapital femoral neck fracture with the implant in situ. Emphasis should be placed on accurate implant positioning and preservation of sliding capacity, because cement augmentation alone may not prevent mechanical failure when the implant position or load transfer is suboptimal. Conclusions: Cement augmentation stiffens the interface and reduces micromotion but does not neutralize malposition-induced stresses. Accurate positioning, preservation of sliding, and timely conversion when sliding fails to progress are advisable; these findings are hypothesis-generating from a single case. We propose a position- and sliding-based decision guide to support clinical decision-making; its usefulness remains to be validated in larger studies.

Background: Although adequate intraoperative imaging is routinely performed during cephalomedullary nailing for trochanteric femoral fractures, an anterior shift of the distal fragment—referred to as anterior redisplacement—is occasionally observed postoperatively. However, the incidence of this dynamic malalignment and its underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed data from 598 consecutive hips in 577 patients (aged ≥65 years) who underwent intramedullary nail fixation for trochanteric fractures at a single center (2012–2023). Sagittal reduction on the lateral radiographic view was classified as posterior, anatomical, or anterior according to the position of the distal fragment, and was recorded both preoperatively and postoperatively. Anterior redisplacement, the primary outcome, was defined as a change in alignment from a posterior or anatomical position postoperatively to an anterior position on any subsequent follow-up radiograph. Independent risk factors were identified by logistic regression. Results: Among the 543 hips reduced posteriorly (n = 204) or anatomically (n = 339), anterior redisplacement occurred in 73 (13.4%). The incidence of anterior redisplacement was significantly higher following anatomical than posterior reduction (19.5% vs 3.4%; p <0.001) and also higher in fractures that were anteriorly aligned preoperatively (18.0%) than in anatomical (8.5%; p <0.01) and posterior (6.2%; p <0.01) alignment. Multivariate analysis revealed two independent predictors: preoperative anterior alignment (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24–2.81; p = 0.003) and postoperative anatomical (vs posterior) reduction (OR 6.49, 95% CI 2.92–14.44; p <0.001). Age, sex, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, Jensen classification, nail length, and canal-filling ratio were not associated with redisplacement. No lag-screw cutout occurred during the follow-up. Conclusions: Anterior redisplacement occurred in one of seven geriatric trochanteric fractures despite apparently satisfactory fixation. An anatomical sagittal reduction—traditionally considered “ideal”—increases the risk more than sixfold, whereas a deliberate posterior-buttress is protective. Unlike patient-related risk factors, sagittal reduction is under the surgeon’s control. The study findings provide evidence that choosing a slight posterior bias can significantly improve stability.

Background: Tibial shaft fractures are frequently treated with intramedullary nailing; however, malalignment remains a concern, particularly in proximal metaphyseal fractures. The surgical approach influenced the nail entry point; however, the three-dimensional (3D) geometric characteristics of the entry point among different approaches remain unclear. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 68 patients with acute tibial shaft fractures (AO/OTA type 42) treated with reamed and locked intramedullary nails from January 2014 to June 2024. The surgical techniques employed included lateral parapatellar (LPA, n = 31), infrapatellar (IPA, n = 27), and suprapatellar (SPA, n = 10) approaches. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) data were reconstructed into standardized 3D images. The mediolateral insertion ratio was calculated as the percentage distance from the lateral tibial plateau edge to the nail entry point relative to the plateau’s width in the coronal plane. The shortest distance from the tibial articular surface to the nail (r) was measured in the sagittal plane. The Kruskal–Wallis test and Dunn’s post hoc comparisons were used to analyze group differences. Results: Baseline patient and fracture characteristics did not significantly differ among the groups. The mediolateral insertion ratio significantly differed (p < 0.0001), with a more lateral entry for the LPA (44.0% [43.0–47.0]) than for the IPA (51.0% [49.0–53.0], post hoc p < 0.0001) and SPA (49.0% [47.0–51.3], post hoc p = 0.0034). Further, the sagittal distance r significantly differed (p < 0.0001), with a more distal entry for the LPA (14.8 [12.8–20.1] mm) than for the IPA (9.7 [7.0–11.8] mm, post hoc p < 0.0001) and SPA (10.5 [5.5–12.9] mm, post hoc p = 0.0008). No statistically significant difference was observed between the IPA and SPA. Conclusions: The LPA generates a significantly more lateral and distal tibial nail entry point than the IPA and SPA. No statistically significant differences were detected between the IPA and SPA in either plane. These 3D-CT findings may warrant attention during approach selection and guidewire placement, particularly for fractures extending into the proximal metaphysis.