INTRODUCTION: Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and third-generation Gamma nail (Gamma 3) are widely used in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. However, it remains unclear which device achieves better clinical and radiographic outcomes when treating intertrochanteric fractures. METHODS: This study comprised 239 patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated with either PFNA or Gamma 3 for a minimum of 12 months. During surgery, the operative time, image intensifier time and amount of blood loss were recorded. Following surgery, we assessed reduction quality and implant position. At the final follow-up, postoperative complications, including femoral shaft fracture, cutout, reoperation, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, cerebral infarction, cardiac infarction and decubital ulcer, were recorded. In addition, walking ability was assessed using the Parker-Palmer mobility score. RESULTS: No difference was found in the operative time, image intensifier time and amount of blood loss between patients treated with PFNA and those treated with Gamma 3. The reduction quality of fractures treated with Gamma 3 was better than those treated with PFNA. However, there were no significant differences in implant position, walking ability and postoperative complications between the two groups. Although Gamma 3 resulted in better reduction quality, it did not provide any advantages in walking ability and postoperative complications when compared with PFNA. CONCLUSION: Therefore, we conclude that both PFNA and Gamma 3 are safe and reliable devices for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.
INTRODUCTION: Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and third-generation Gamma nail (Gamma 3) are widely used in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. However, it remains unclear which device achieves better clinical and radiographic outcomes when treating intertrochanteric fractures. METHODS: This study comprised 239 patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated with either PFNA or Gamma 3 for a minimum of 12 months. During surgery, the operative time, image intensifier time and amount of blood loss were recorded. Following surgery, we assessed reduction quality and implant position. At the final follow-up, postoperative complications, including femoral shaft fracture, cutout, reoperation, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, cerebral infarction, cardiac infarction and decubital ulcer, were recorded. In addition, walking ability was assessed using the Parker-Palmer mobility score. RESULTS: No difference was found in the operative time, image intensifier time and amount of blood loss between patients treated with PFNA and those treated with Gamma 3. The reduction quality of fractures treated with Gamma 3 was better than those treated with PFNA. However, there were no significant differences in implant position, walking ability and postoperative complications between the two groups. Although Gamma 3 resulted in better reduction quality, it did not provide any advantages in walking ability and postoperative complications when compared with PFNA. CONCLUSION: Therefore, we conclude that both PFNA and Gamma 3 are safe and reliable devices for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.
Authors: Q Cui; Y S Liu; D F Li; P Zhang; J Guo; C Liu; W H Jiang; B Zhang; S B Liu; Y J Zeng Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 3.693