Literature DB >> 1592640

[The gamma-nail as a resilient alternative to the dynamic hip screw in unstable proximal femoral fractures in the elderly].

P Guyer1, M Landolt, C Eberle, H Keller.   

Abstract

In a prospective randomised trial between September 1989 and June 1990 one hundred patients with per- and subtrochanteric fractures were consecutively treated by gamma-nail or DHS. The average age of both groups was about 80 years. The operation time for gamma-nailing was longer than for DHS implantation and also the postoperative blood loss was higher in the gamma-nail group. We found no difference of intraoperative blood loss, of perioperative lethality and in duration of hospital care. 90% of gamma-nail patients and 80% of DHS patients were successfully able to walk four days after operation with full weight bearing on the operated limb. Three patients in the DHS group with unstable fractures got cranial perforation of the cephalic screw mobilisation. Five patients of the gamma-nail group were reoperated, one case because of missed distal locking, one because of cranial perforation of the cephalic screw after varus dislocation of the proximal fragment. One patient suffered intraoperatively a proximal femur shaft fracture which was corrected during operation. In one case a wound hematoma was evacuated, an other patient needed secondary wound closure. Despite technical imperfection of implant and instruments, we conclude that the gamma-nail allows a very high percentage early and full weight bearing immediately after operation. So we consider that in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures of geriatric patients, the gamma-nail has proven to be more efficient than the DHS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1592640

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Helv Chir Acta        ISSN: 0018-0181


  8 in total

1.  [Comparative stability evaluation of dynamic hip screw and gamma-nail osteosyntheses in unstable pertrochanteric femoral osteotomies].

Authors:  W Kaiser; J Burmester; H Hausmann; V Gulielmos; M Hätzel; H J Merker
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Chir       Date:  1997

Review 2.  Surgical interventions for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sharon R Lewis; Richard Macey; Joseph Lewis; Jamie Stokes; James R Gill; Jonathan A Cook; William Gp Eardley; Martyn J Parker; Xavier L Griffin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-02-10

Review 3.  Cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

Authors:  Sharon R Lewis; Richard Macey; James R Gill; Martyn J Parker; Xavier L Griffin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-01-26

4.  [Trochanteric fractures of the femur. A retrospective study of 223 patients treated with the Dynamic Hip Screw].

Authors:  P Mertl; S Mauger; O Jarde; P Vives
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  1995-12

5.  Functional comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail in trochanteric hip fractures: a matched-pair study of 268 patients.

Authors:  I Saarenpää; T Heikkinen; J Ristiniemi; P Hyvönen; J Leppilahti; P Jalovaara
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-10-18       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Pertrochanteric fractures: tips and tricks in nail osteosynthesis.

Authors:  A H Ruecker; J M Rueger
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 3.693

7.  Is PFNA-II a better implant for stable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly population ? A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Navin Kumar Singh; Vijay Sharma; Vivek Trikha; Shiva Gamanagatti; Amit Roy; Avtar Singh Balawat; Palaniswamy Aravindh; Amrut Raje Diwakar
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-02-07

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

Authors:  Gursimrat Singh Cheema; Amit Rastogi; Vakil Singh; Satish Chandra Goel; Diwakar Mishra; Sumit Arora
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.251

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.