H Li1, W Zhang, J Yan, L-R Han, S-Z Han, X-F Yang, B Zhao. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng Clinical School of Taishan Medical University, Liaocheng, China. 277594725@qq.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the effects of stem type prosthesis implantation of the greater trochanter of the femur (GTF) and proximal femur nail anti-rotation (PFNA) for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture, including 61 cases who underwent GTF treatment and 47 cases who underwent PFNA treatment. We compared the operative time, blood loss, clinical healing and bone healing time, partial weight bearing and full weight bearing time, Harris hip score, rate of complications and rate of adverse reactions of implantation materials. RESULTS: Comparing the two groups in terms of operative time and blood loss, the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The clinical and bone healing time in the GTF group were shorter than those in the PFNA group and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). The partial and full-weight bearing times in the GTF group were significantly shorter than those in the PFNA group. The Harris scores, one and six months after surgery, were higher than those in the PFNA group and by comparing the scores after 12 and 18 months, the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The rate of complications and rate of adverse reactions of implantation material in the GTF group were lower than those in the PFNA group and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GTF implantation is more advantageous in functional improvement and in reducing complications compared with PFNA for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture.
OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the effects of stem type prosthesis implantation of the greater trochanter of the femur (GTF) and proximal femur nail anti-rotation (PFNA) for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture, including 61 cases who underwent GTF treatment and 47 cases who underwent PFNA treatment. We compared the operative time, blood loss, clinical healing and bone healing time, partial weight bearing and full weight bearing time, Harris hip score, rate of complications and rate of adverse reactions of implantation materials. RESULTS: Comparing the two groups in terms of operative time and blood loss, the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The clinical and bone healing time in the GTF group were shorter than those in the PFNA group and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). The partial and full-weight bearing times in the GTF group were significantly shorter than those in the PFNA group. The Harris scores, one and six months after surgery, were higher than those in the PFNA group and by comparing the scores after 12 and 18 months, the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The rate of complications and rate of adverse reactions of implantation material in the GTF group were lower than those in the PFNA group and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:GTF implantation is more advantageous in functional improvement and in reducing complications compared with PFNA for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture.