Literature DB >> 16059696

A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures.

S Papasimos1, C M Koutsojannis, A Panagopoulos, P Megas, E Lambiris.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we initiated a prospective, randomised, clinical trial comparing the AMBI, TGN and PFN operations used for treatment of unstable fractures, for differences in intra-operative use, consolidation, complications and functional outcome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have compared the pre-, intra- and post-operating variables of AMBI, TGN and PFN operations that were used for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures, of 120 patients all above 60 years old diagnosed with extracapsular hip fractures classified as AO Type 31-A2 or Type 31-A3.
RESULTS: According to our results the three methods are comparable in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures of patients above 60 years old.
CONCLUSION: The AMBI remains the gold standard for the fractures of trochanteric region. TGN has an easier and faster procedure, facilitates early weight bearing and had minor late complications. An improper use of the PFN system was the reason for the most complications and the longer operation time of the device. PFN is also an accepted minimally invasive implant for unstable proximal femoral fractures but future modification of the implant to avoid Z-effect phenomenon, careful surgical technique and selection of the patients should reduce its high complication rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16059696     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-005-0021-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  43 in total

Review 1.  [Pertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly].

Authors:  G H Sandmann; P Biberthaler
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Letter regarding article by Li AB et al.: intramedullary and extramedullary fixations for the treatment of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Hong-Bin Guo; Hong-Bo He
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Proximal femoral nail antirotation against dynamic hip screw for unstable trochanteric fractures; a prospective randomized comparison.

Authors:  Sinan Zehir; R Zehir; Sultan Zehir; İ Azboy; N Haykir
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 3.693

4.  Convergence of outcomes for hip fracture fixation by nails and plates.

Authors:  Foster Chen; Zhong Wang; Timothy Bhattacharyya
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Early Complications in Proximal Femoral Nailing Done for Treatment of Subtrochanteric Fractures

Authors:  B Kanthimathi; Vl Narayanan
Journal:  Malays Orthop J       Date:  2012-03

Review 6.  Intertrochanteric fractures: a review of fixation methods.

Authors:  Senthil Nathan Sambandam; Jayadev Chandrasekharan; Varatharaj Mounasamy; Cyril Mauffrey
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-03-30

Review 7.  [Trochanteric femoral fractures: anatomy, biomechanics and choice of implants].

Authors:  F Bonnaire; T Lein; P Bula
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.000

8.  Revision of a nonunited subtrochanteric femoral fracture around a failed intramedullary nail with the use of RIA products, BMP-7 and hydroxyapatite: a case report.

Authors:  Christopher Tzioupis; Pavlos Panteliadis; Zakareya Gamie; Eleftherios Tsiridis
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2011-03-01

9.  Hip screw lateral migration with no cut-out or non-union implication: a case report.

Authors:  Nikolaos Lasanianos; Georgios Mouzopoulos; Ioannis Georgilas
Journal:  Cases J       Date:  2009-03-10

10.  CORR Insights™: Intramedullary nails result in more reoperations than sliding hip screws in two-part intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Paul J Dougherty
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.