Traumatology
Published: 2021-09-28

The treatment of intertrochanteric fracture: a survey on the preferred treatment used by orthopedic surgeons in Campania

Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN “S. Giuseppe Moscati”, Avellino, Italy
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9265-1393
Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8560-721X
Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN “Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano”, Caserta, Italy
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9867-4692
ASL CASERTA Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital, Aversa, Italy
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2346-1144
Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN S. Giuseppe Moscati, Avellino, Italy
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0394-4942
Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN “Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano”, Caserta, Italy
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5739-2370
hip fractures trochanteric fracture survey management intramedullary nail sliding hip screws

Abstract

Hip fragility fractures incidence is constantly increasing, and outcomes are mostly poor in terms of both morbidity and mortality. Surgery is the treatment of choice for most hip fractures, but the choice between the various fixation devices is difficult. We conducted a survey on the treatment of trochanteric fractures among orthopedic surgeons in Campania using a Google form questionnaire. The preferred treatment was cephalomedullary distal locked nailing for most fractures, while sliding hip screws and hip replacement were limited to 31 A1.2 and 31.B2 fractures.

Introduction

Life expectancy has constantly increased during the last 50 years in Italy 1. The population of people aged ≥ 85 years is estimated to grow by over 12% within the year 2050 2.

Hip fracture (HF) are associated with poor outcomes, with a one-year mortality of 25% and incomplete recovery of pre-fracture status in more than 50% of patients 3. The incidence of HF has steadily increased in the last decades according to the progressive ageing of the population 2. Approximately 50% of HF observed yearly in Italy are intertrochanteric.

The aim of surgical treatment in this type of fracture is to allow immediate mobilization and full weight-bearing, to aid functional recovery, and an appropriate surgery is recommended to improve these outcomes. A poorly treated HF often leads to unequal leg length, pain and irreversible mobility loss, greatly influencing the quality of life 4.

However, surgery in intertrochanteric fractures is challenging, often with reduced bone quality leading to a high risk of reoperation.

Historically, sliding compression screws (SHS) were the preferred implant 5-8, although cephalomedullary nailing (CN) has become more popular since its introduction in the 1980s 9-11.

Multiple clinical trials and meta-analyses have directly compared the two fixation devices for the treatment of these fractures 5-8,12-15, but the conclusions are mostly confusing.

In fact, no study found that one construct was clearly superior over the other 6,8,12,15-18. Therefore, a consensus on what treatment would be most appropriate is not achievable, given the heterogeneity of fracture patterns and implant designs reported in the available literature 7,8,12,13,15.

Despite this uncertainty, data collected between 1999 and 2006 showed that CN was the preferred technique for fixation of HF, particularly among younger surgeons 2. Considering the controversies on the choice of treatment of trochanteric fractures, we decided to investigate on current practice among orthopedic surgeons, trying to give a picture of the unmet needs of the daily practice.

Materials and methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study on current practices and opinions of orthopedic surgeons for the treatment of standard obliquity intertrochanteric fractures. We developed our survey questionnaire based on the available evidence and expert opinion.

A preliminary meeting was conducted by the research group to propose possible questions to include in the survey questionnaire. Only questions that could be answered in a binomial way were included and discussed. A secret voting session was performed during the meeting and those questions that had more than 55% of agreement were included.

We created a questionnaire on the Google form platform (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States); the questions were asked for any single type of trochanteric fracture.

The survey was distributed through email to the members of the Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatologists of Campania (Associazione Campana Ortopedici e Traumatologi Ospedalieri, A.C.O.T.O.). Residents, nonpracticing, and retired members were excluded.

Results

The questionnaire was sent to 488 members of the A.C.O.T.O., and 352 answered (72%), with the majority replying in September 2020 (66%).

The results of the survey are shown in Table I.

Discussion

More than 30 years ago, Muhr et al. 19 highlighted the relevance of appropriate management of the geriatric patient with a trochanteric fracture. The authors stated: “instability, osteoporosis and the requirement of early mobilization are the main problems in comminuted intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients”.

Our aim was to evaluate the real-life practice among orthopedic surgeons in Campania to intertrochanteric fractures.

Our data showed that according to the A.C.O.T.O. members, CN are the preferred fixation device, probably because of the easy technique, biomechanical advantage, and perceived improved outcomes. These findings are in agreement with that reported in the available literature 9-11.

However, the optimal treatment of HF is still debated. Several large prospective randomized trials have directly compared SHS and contemporary CN, reporting similar outcomes 20.

In the present study, the use of SHS or hip replacement was limited to selected cases (namely 31 A1.2 and 31.B2).

A large proportion of orthopedic surgeons in Campania tend to use a distal locked nail in all types of fractures, expect in case of 31.B3, in which over 57% of surgeons did not use any type of distal locking.

Ciaffa et al. 21, in a prospective study on 212 patients, reported an incidence of peri-nail fractures of 3.3% with no differences in the three groups (without distal locking, dynamic locking, static locking) in terms of clinical, radiological outcomes, and complication rate. Their study supports the belief that short CN cannot be locked for stable (31-A1) and some unstable (31-A2) trochanteric fractures.

On the other hand, Rosenbaum et al. 22 reported that patients without distal locking presented a greater risk of fractures close to the nail.

In case of an unstable intertrochanteric fracture, double distal locking is generally preferred by the orthopedic surgeons in Campania.

Definitions of unstable fractures vary, but include those with involvement of the lesser trochanter 15,23-26, a reverse fracture line or a trochanteric comminution associated with a big posteromedial component 27,28, a broken greater trochanter 29, and lateral cortex breach 30,31. Despite the use of current techniques and implants, treatment failure ranges from 0 to 20% 15,25,26,32-34. Several meta-analyses 6,13,35 have suggested the absence of any difference between fixation devices. Furthermore, a primary arthroplasty might be considered, focusing on function and perioperative complication rate 36.

Regarding the type of cephalomedulary fixation (i.e.: monoaxial or biaxial; screw or blade) used by the A.C.O.T.O. members, we observed a wide difference, and the indication seems to be mostly related to their preferences.

Nherera et al. compared the results of a cephalomedullary monoxial nail with a helical blade (PFNA) with a polyaxial one (InterTan), observing that the use of the latter in unstable fractures was associated with a reduction in reoperation rate, postoperative pain, and implant-related complications. However, the authors did not find any difference in terms of fracture non-union rate and functional results 37.

The intramedullary nail has become the most common internal fixation device used worldwide thanks to its biomechanical superiority and minimally invasive application 13,15,23,26,32-35, compared to extramedullary ones, such as the sliding hip screw (SHS) 6,13,15,35,38-40 or the newer locked minimally invasive plates 25,26,39,41-43.

In a recent survey, Sciacca et al. 44 collected data from participants of an international course, grouping the results in light of the experience of the investigated group. In the “inexperienced group”, surgical fixation selected for the trochanteric fractures was CN in 95%, while for SHS was 5%. Interestingly, this percentage slightly changed in the “expert group”, where 56% preferred an intramedullary nail, and 38% a sliding hip screw.

Giordano et al. 45 performed a similar survey in Brazil analyzing the means of fixation of trochanteric fractures and the motivation that guide surgeons to decision making. In their survey, implant availability was the most relevant factor for the treatment decision followed by fracture classification.

Despite the increasingly sporadic use of the SHS, it is important to underline that for the same type of fracture, the plate produces fewer complications in terms of secondary fractures than the intramedullary nail.

Zhang et al. 46, conducted a systematic review, reporting that short nails are more likely to be used for stable trochanteric fractures (31-A1 and A2), and long ones for unstable reverse obliquity fractures.

Although both long (LN) and short (SN) nails have low rates of complications and mortality, the results are still controversial and the choice between them is still debated 44,47,48.

LN might have the advantage of reinforcing the entire femur and prevent peri-nail fractures by avoiding stress concentration in the distal femur and potentially reducing secondary fracture rates of the femoral shaft 49.

However, Shannon et al. observed that treatment of trochanteric fractures with both SN and LN yields comparable functional and clinical results. The authors recommended the choice of a short nail when the fracture presents a subtrochanteric extension no longer than 3 cm 50.

A Dutch survey reported that only 2% of respondents would always manage unstable intertrochanteric fractures with extramedullary plate systems, although a number of studies 6,13,15,23,26 have reported no difference in the rates after treatment with both intramedullary and extramedullary devices. However, lateral cortex breaches in A3 fractures treated with a SHS are generally associated with higher failure rates 30,41. In a Cochrane meta-analysis 6, the use of SHS were associated with lower complication rates and without any functional advantages compared to CN.

In contrast to surgeon perception of technical ease, several authors have shown that there is a learning curve associated with CN use 10,12, and a high risk of complications (including perinail fractures) had been reported. These latter are an emerging entity with specific problems to face, which led some authors to purpose a specific classification system to guide treatment 51.

The most recent Cochrane review on the treatment of pertrochanteric fractures concluded that the SHS may be a superior construct because of a decreased rate of surgical complications compared with CN 6.

Of note, complication rates after use of the newer modified nails appear to be lower in comparison to those of older nail generations 15,26,32-34,52.

Conclusions

Hip fragility fractures need to be treated surgically in most cases. However, a number of open questions remain unsolved, and their answers are not always easy and intuitive. However, they can be rationally addressed with the tools of evidence-based medicine.

Different ways of treatment have been reported in the literature for trochanteric fractures, and in current practice the management of these fractures can be extremely different between surgeons and also depend on the surgeon’s experience and philosophy.

Our survey is an interesting tool to analyze current practice and to evaluate where we educational efforts should be concentrated to improve current practice, with the final aim of improving outcomes of HF.

Acknowledgement

The Authors wants to thank the ACOTO members for their support to the present study.

Ethical consideration

Not applicable for this type of study.

Funding

No fund was received for the present study.

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures and tables

Fracture type Plate and screws (SHS or similar) Short cephalomedullary nail
TOT. Hip screw Hip plus antirotational screws TOT. Monoaxial Hip screw plus antirotational screws Hip blade Biaxial Distal locking (yes) Static distal locking Dynamic distal locking
31 A1.2 22% 25% 10% 70.70% 55% 15% 2.50% 5% 65% 50% 15%
31 A1.3 4.90% 15% 2.50% 75.60% 57.50% 30% 2.50% n.a. 85% 70% 15%
31 A2.2 7.30% 7.50% 10% 51.20% 42.50% 22.50% n.a. 5% 62.50% 52.50% 10%
31 A2.3 12.20% 12.50% 12.50% 48.80% 37.50% 25% n.a. 10% 57.50% 50% 13%
31 A3.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.20% 25% 7.50% n.a. n.a. 27.50% 20% 7.50%
31 A3.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 17.10% 25% 5% n.a. n.a. 27.50% 17.50% 10%
31 A3.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 4.90% 15% 7.50% n.a. n.a. 22.50% 20% 2.50%
31 B3 22% 17.50% 12.50% 53.70% 25% 27.50% 5% 2.50% 42.50% 42.50% n.a.
31 B2.3 4.90% 10% 5% 9.80% 10% 7.50% 2.50% NON APPLICABILE 17.50% 20% n.a.
Table I.Results of the survey according to the fracture type. N.A: Not available. SHS: sliding hip screw.

References

  1. Kanis JA, Burlet N, Cooper C, on behalf of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2008; 19:399-428. DOI
  2. Piscitelli P. Ten years of hip fractures in Italy: for the first time a decreasing trend in elderly women. World J Orthop. 2014; 5:386. DOI
  3. Pioli G, Barone A, Mussi C, On behalf of GIOG. The management of hip fracture in the older population. Joint position statement by Gruppo Italiano Ortogeriatria (GIOG). Aging Clin Exp Res. 2014; 26:547-553. DOI
  4. Orthogeriatrics: the Management of older patients with fragility fractures. Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2021. DOI
  5. Kaplan K, Miyamoto R, Levine BR. Surgical management of hip fractures: an evidence-based review of the literature. II: intertrochanteric fractures:. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008; 16:665-673. DOI
  6. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;CD000093. DOI
  7. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM. Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19:229-233. DOI
  8. Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C. Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail? A randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2002; 16:386-393. DOI
  9. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice: a review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Jt Surg-Am. 2008; 90:700-707. DOI
  10. Chen F, Wang Z, Bhattacharyya T. Convergence of outcomes for hip fracture fixation by nails and plates. Clin Orthop. 2013; 471:1349-1355. DOI
  11. Forte ML, Virnig BA, Kane RL. Geographic variation in device use for intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Jt Surg-Am. 2008; 90:691-699. DOI
  12. Parker MJ, Bowers TR, Pryor GA. Sliding hip screw versus the Targon PF nail in the treatment of trochanteric fractures of the hip: a randomised trial of 600 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94-B:391-397. DOI
  13. Jones HW, Johnston P, Parker M. Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures. Int Orthop. 2006; 30:69-78. DOI
  14. Knobe M, Gradl G, Ladenburger A. Unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures: is there a consensus on definition and treatment in Germany?. Clin Orthop. 2013; 471:2831-2840. DOI
  15. Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C. A comparison of the long gamma nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Jt Surg-Am. 2010; 92:792-798. DOI
  16. Bohl DD, Basques BA, Golinvaux NS. Extramedullary compared with intramedullary implants for intertrochanteric hip fractures: thirty-day outcomes of 4432 procedures from the ACS NSQIP database. J Bone Jt Surg-Am. 2014; 96:1871-1877. DOI
  17. Norris R, Bhattacharjee D, Parker MJ. Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients. Injury. 2012; 43:706-711. DOI
  18. Swart E, Makhni EC, Macaulay W. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fixation options for intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Jt Surg. 2014; 96:1612-1620. DOI
  19. Muhr G, Tscherne H, Thomas R. Comminuted trochanteric femoral fractures in geriatric patients: the results of 231 cases treated with internal fixation and acrylic cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;41-44.
  20. Niu E, Yang A, Harris AHS. Which fixation device is preferred for surgical treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures in the United States? A survey of orthopaedic surgeons. Clin Orthop. 2015; 473:3647-3655. DOI
  21. Ciaffa V, Vicenti G, Mori CM. Unlocked versus dynamic and static distal locked femoral nails in stable and unstable intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective study. Injury. 2018; 49:S19-S25. DOI
  22. Skála-Rosenbaum J, Džupa V, Bartoška R. Distal locking in short hip nails: cause or prevention of peri-implant fractures?. Injury. 2016; 47:887-892. DOI
  23. Schipper IB, Marti RK, van der Werken C. Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation. Injury. 2004; 35:142-151. DOI
  24. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association Classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21:S1-S6. DOI
  25. Knobe M, Münker R, Sellei R. Die instabile pertrochantäre Femurfraktur. Komplikationen, Fraktursinterung und Funktion nach extra- und intramedullärer Versorgung (PCCP™, DHS und PFN). Z Für Orthop Unfallchirurgie. 2009; 147:306-313. DOI
  26. Knobe M, Drescher W, Heussen N. Is helical blade nailing superior to locked minimally invasive plating in unstable pertrochanteric fractures?. Clin Orthop. 2012; 470:2302-2312. DOI
  27. Dimon JH, Hughston JC. Unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1967; 49:440-450.
  28. Evans EM. The treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1949; 31B:190-203.
  29. Palm H, Lysén C, Krasheninnikoff M. Intramedullary nailing appears to be superior in pertrochanteric hip fractures with a detached greater trochanter: 311 consecutive patients followed for 1 year. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82:166-170. DOI
  30. Gotfried Y. The lateral trochanteric wall: a key element in the reconstruction of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop. 2004; 425:82-86.
  31. Palm H, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S. Integrity of the lateral femoral wall in intertrochanteric hip fractures: an important predictor of a reoperation. J Bone Jt Surg. 2007; 89:470-475. DOI
  32. Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M. Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip – blade vs screw. Injury. 2010; 41:1292-1296. DOI
  33. Simmermacher RKJ, Ljungqvist J, Bail H. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA®) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury. 2008; 39:932-939. DOI
  34. Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y. Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury. 2010; 41:1234-1238. DOI
  35. Audig L, Hanson B, Swiontkowski MF. Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices. Int Orthop. 2003; 27:197-203. DOI
  36. Bonnevialle P, Saragaglia D, Ehlinger M. Trochanteric locking nail versus arthroplasty in unstable intertrochanteric fracture in patients aged over 75 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011; 97:S95-100. DOI
  37. Nherera L, Trueman P, Horner A. Comparison of a twin interlocking derotation and compression screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) with a single screw derotation cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation): a systematic review and meta-analysis for intertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Surg. 2018; 13:46. DOI
  38. Bonnaire F, Götschin U, Kuner EH. Early and late results of 200 DHS osteosyntheses in the reconstruction of pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Unfallchirurg. 1992; 95:246-253.
  39. Knobe M, Münker R, Schmidt-Rohlfing B. Operationsergebnisse nach pertrochantärer Femurfraktur: welchen Einfluss hat die Osteoporose? Vergleich zwischen DHS und perkutaner Kompressionsplatte. Z Für Orthop Unfallchirurgie. 2008; 146:44-51. DOI
  40. Pervez H, Parker MJ, Vowler S. Prediction of fixation failure after sliding hip screw fixation. Injury. 2004; 35:994-998. DOI
  41. Gotfried Y. Percutaneous compression plating of intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2000; 14:490-495. DOI
  42. Langford J, Pillai G, Ugliailoro AD. Perioperative lateral trochanteric wall fractures: sliding hip screw versus percutaneous compression plate for intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2011; 25:191-195. DOI
  43. Schmidt-Rohlfing B, Heussen N, Knobe M. Reoperation rate after internal fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures with the percutaneous compression plate: what are the risk factors?. J Orthop Trauma. 2013; 27:312-317. DOI
  44. Sciacca S, Lidder SS, Grechenig C. Variations of treatment in selected proximal femur fractures among surgeons with different surgical experience – a survey at an international AO course. Injury. 2015; 46:S57-S60. DOI
  45. Giordano V, Ribeiro DN, Tinoco RG. A survey of current practices and preferences for internal fixation of trochanteric fractures of the femur in Brazil. Cureus. 2018. Publisher Full Text | DOI
  46. Zhang Y, Zhang S, Wang S. Long and short intramedullary nails for fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017; 103:685-690. DOI
  47. Dunn J, Kusnezov N, Bader J. Long versus short cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016; 17:361-367. DOI
  48. Kanakaris NK, Tosounidis TH, Giannoudis PV. Nailing intertrochanteric hip fractures: short versus long; locked versus nonlocked. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29:S10-S6. DOI
  49. Little NJ, Verma V, Fernando C. A prospective trial comparing the Holland nail with the dynamic hip screw in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90-B:1073-1078. DOI
  50. Shannon SF, Yuan BJ, Cross WW. Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for pertrochanteric hip fractures: a randomized prospective study. J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33:480-486. DOI
  51. Toro G, Moretti A, Ambrosio D. Fractures around trochanteric nails: the “Vergilius Classification System”. Adv Orthop. 2021; 2021:1-9. DOI
  52. Stern R, Lübbeke A, Suva D. Prospective randomised study comparing screw versus helical blade in the treatment of low-energy trochanteric fractures. Int Orthop. 2011; 35:1855-1861. DOI

Affiliations

Raffaele Pezzella

Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN “S. Giuseppe Moscati”, Avellino, Italy

Giuseppe Toro

Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy

Giacomo Errico

Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN “Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano”, Caserta, Italy

Achille Pellegrino

ASL CASERTA Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital, Aversa, Italy

Antonio Medici

Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN S. Giuseppe Moscati, Avellino, Italy

Gaetano Bruno

Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN “Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano”, Caserta, Italy

on behalf the A.C.O.T.O members

Copyright

© © Ortopedici Traumatologi Ospedalieri d’Italia (O.T.O.D.i.) , 2021

How to Cite

[1]
Pezzella, R., Toro, G., Errico, G., Pellegrino, A., Medici, A., Bruno, G. and A.C.O.T.O members, on behalf the 2021. The treatment of intertrochanteric fracture: a survey on the preferred treatment used by orthopedic surgeons in Campania. Lo Scalpello - Journal. 35, 2 (Sep. 2021), 106-111. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36149/0390-5276-211.
  • Abstract viewed - 129 times
  • PDF downloaded - 23 times