Literature DB >> 24366790

Cephalomedullary nail versus sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Ivan Tjun Huat Chua1, Ganesan Naidu Rajamoney, Ernest Beng Kee Kwek.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the short-term ambulatory function of elderly patients after fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures with either the AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) device or the dynamic hip screw (DHS).
METHODS: 63 patients aged 60 years or older underwent fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fractures (AO types A2 and A3) using the PFNA (n=25) or DHS (n=38). The decision for the type of implant used was based on the lead surgeon's preference, according to perceived fracture stability and clinical experience. In patients having PFNA fixation, weight bearing ambulation and rehabilitation was commenced on day 2. The extent of weight bearing was decided by the lead surgeon based on the stability of the fracture. In patients having DHS fixation, non-weight bearing and ambulation with a walking aid was commenced on day 2. Ambulatory function before injury and after surgery was measured using the Parker Mobility Score (PMS). The 2 groups were compared in terms of the PMS, ambulatory independence, and environmental mobility.
RESULTS: Respectively in PFNA and DHS patients, 32% and 13% (p=0.035) were ambulant with a walking frame at discharge; the remainder were wheelchair bound. Patients treated with PFNA had significantly higher median PMS at 6 months (4 vs. 2, p=0.002), median ambulatory independence score at 6 months (4 vs. 3, p=0.004) and at 12 months (5 vs. 4, p=0.001), and median environmental mobility score at 6 months (2 vs. 1, p=0.007). They also had significantly higher percentage of patients able to ambulate outdoor and in community at 6 months (64% vs. 29%, p=0.02) and able to walk independently or with a walking aid at 12 months (96% vs. 69%, p=0.01). There were 3 complications. Two patients treated with PFNA had blade cut-out, owing to poor fracture reduction. One patient treated with DHS had screw cut-out and subsequently developed avascular necrosis of the femoral head.
CONCLUSION: Unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients with good pre-fracture ambulatory function stabilised with the PFNA resulted in better short-term ambulatory function.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fracture fixation, intramedullary; hip fractures; treatment outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24366790     DOI: 10.1177/230949901302100309

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)        ISSN: 1022-5536            Impact factor:   1.118


  14 in total

1.  Comparative study of InterTAN and Dynamic Hip Screw in treatment of femoral intertrochanteric injury and wound.

Authors:  Qiang Wang; Xin Yang; Hua-Zheng He; Li-Jun Dong; De-Gang Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-12-15

2.  Outcomes of minimally invasive osteosynthesis of intertrochanteric fractures with dynamic hip screw: A prospective case series.

Authors:  Ahmed Shams; Mohamed Ahmed Samy; Ahmed Abdelazim Abosalem; Mohamed Kamal Mesregah
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2022-02-25

3.  A comparative study of Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) versus Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Md Faraz Jamil; Julfiqar Mohd; Mazhar Abbas; Yasir Salam Siddiqui; Mohammad Jesan Khan
Journal:  Int J Burns Trauma       Date:  2022-06-15

4.  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

5.  Comparing the Intramedullary Nailing Method Versus Dynamic Hip Screw in Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures.

Authors:  Ali Yeganeh; Roozbeh Taghavi; Mehdi Moghtadaei
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2016-01-31

6.  Optimizing stability in AO/OTA 31-A2 intertrochanteric fracture fixation in older patients with osteoporosis.

Authors:  Chi Zhang; Bo Xu; Guanzhao Liang; Xianshang Zeng; Dan Zeng; Deng Chen; Zhe Ge; Weiguang Yu; Xinchao Zhang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 1.671

7.  Loss of the posteromedial support: a risk factor for implant failure after fixation of AO 31-A2 intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Kai-Feng Ye; Yong Xing; Chuan Sun; Zhi-Yong Cui; Fang Zhou; Hong-Quan Ji; Yan Guo; Yang Lyu; Zhong-Wei Yang; Guo-Jin Hou; Yun Tian; Zhi-Shan Zhang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2020-01-05       Impact factor: 2.628

8.  Comparing the Intramedullary Nail and Extramedullary Fixation in Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures.

Authors:  Wen-Qiang Zhang; Jian Sun; Chun-Yu Liu; Hong-Yao Zhao; Yi-Feng Sun
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Implant-Related Complications and Mortality After Use of Short or Long Gamma Nail for Intertrochanteric and Subtrochanteric Fractures: A Prospective Study with Minimum 13-Year Follow-up.

Authors:  Nolan S Horner; Kristian Samuelsson; Janos Solyom; Kristian Bjørgul; Olufemi R Ayeni; Bengt Östman
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2017-09-25

10.  Predicting Factors for Return to Prefracture Ambulatory Level in High Surgical Risk Elderly Patients Sustained Intertrochanteric Fracture and Treated With Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) With and Without Cement Augmentation.

Authors:  Noratep Kulachote; Paphon Sa-Ngasoongsong; Norachart Sirisreetreerux; Kulapat Chulsomlee; Sorawut Thamyongkit; Siwadol Wongsak
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2020-03-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.