Literature DB >> 31209421

[Proximal femoral nails antirotation and dynamic hip screws for fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur: A meta-analysis].

Y R Zhang1, F Rao1, W Pi1, P X Zhang1, B G Jiang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and dynamic hip screw (DHS) for unstable intertrochanteric fractures using meta-analysis.
METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cocharane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, China Science and Technology Papers and Citation Database (CSTPCD) and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were searched for published randomized controlled trials before January 1, 2019. Two researchers independently screened the literature in the light of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality of the studies and extracted the data which were consisted of clinical efficacy indexes, such as incision length, operation time,intraoperative blood loss, weight-bearing time,fracture-healing time, Harris hip score and safety indicators like complications. Meta-analysis was performed with the Revman 5.3 software provided by Cochrane Community in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) standard.
RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials met the requirement with a total of 779 patients, of whom 383 were fixed with PFNA and 396 with DHS. Meta-analysis demonstrated that PFNA was associated with smaller surgical incision length [MD=-7.43, 95%CI (-9.31, -5.55), P<0.05], shorter operation time [MD=-22.76, 95%CI (-29.57, -11.95), P<0.05], less intraoperative blood loss [MD=-216.34, 95%CI (-275.18, - 157.49), P<0.05], earlier weight bearing after surgery [MD=-12.34, 95%CI (-17.71, -6.97), P<0.05], shorter fracture healing time [MD=-5.00, 95%CI (-7.73, -2.26), P<0.05], higher postoperative Harris hip score [MD=12.22, 95%CI (3.88, 20.55), P<0.05], higher rate of excellent Harris hip score [OR=3.56, 95%CI (1.44, 8.81), P<0.05] and lower incidence rate of postoperative complications [OR=0.48, 95%CI (0.33, 0.70), P<0.05], such as hip varus, wound infection, urinary tract infection, pulmonary infection, pressure sore, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, heart failure and cerebral infraction when compared with DHS. No statistical difference was shown between the groups when it came to subgroup analysis by age. However, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the duration of hospitalization and the complications resulting in the occurrences of internal fixation loosening, such as femoral shaft fracture (during or post operation), internal fixation fracture, cut-out, displacement or retraction.
CONCLUSION: Current published evidence supports the superiority of PFNA to DHS for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in terms of clinical efficacy. The conclusion was limited because of the relatively low quality of evidence with low strength of confidence. Large scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to validate the safety of PFNA and DHS for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31209421      PMCID: PMC7439035          DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.03.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban        ISSN: 1671-167X


  19 in total

1.  A comparison of the proximal femoral nail antirotation device and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fracture.

Authors:  Y Z Xu; D C Geng; H Q Mao; X S Zhu; H L Yang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.671

2.  Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices.

Authors:  L Audigé; B Hanson; M F Swiontkowski
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-05-07       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip--Blade vs screw.

Authors:  Andreas Lenich; Helen Vester; Michael Nerlich; Edgar Mayr; Ulrich Stöckle; Bernd Füchtmeier
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 2.586

4.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Functional recovery of elderly patients with surgically-treated intertrochanteric fractures: preliminary results of a randomised trial comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail techniques.

Authors:  Marcelo T E Guerra; Sandro Pasqualin; Marcos Paulo Souza; Renata Lenz
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 6.  Hip fractures in adults.

Authors:  Lance C Brunner; Liza Eshilian-Oates; Tony Y Kuo
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 3.292

7.  World-wide projections for hip fracture.

Authors:  B Gullberg; O Johnell; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Survey of hip fractures in Japan: Recent trends in prevalence and treatment.

Authors:  Hiroshi Hagino; Naoto Endo; Atsushi Harada; Jun Iwamoto; Tasuku Mashiba; Satoshi Mori; Seiji Ohtori; Akinori Sakai; Junichi Takada; Tetsuji Yamamoto
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 1.601

9.  Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail?: a randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail.

Authors:  Marc Saudan; Anne Lübbeke; Christophe Sadowski; Nicolas Riand; Richard Stern; Pierre Hoffmeyer
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  Epidemiology, treatment and mortality of trochanteric and subtrochanteric hip fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register.

Authors:  Leif Mattisson; Alicja Bojan; Anders Enocson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.