Literature DB >> 31316254

Screw versus helical proximal femoral nail in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures in the elderly.

Col Narinder Kumar1, Maj P K Srivastava2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Comparison of clinical, radiological and functional outcomes of screw proximal femoral nail (PFN) and helical PFN in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.
METHODS: This prospective randomised comparative study included 60 patients with closed unstable intertrochanteric fractures (AO classification-A2.2-A2.3 & A3.1-A3.3). Patients were randomised to 2 treatment groups using simple random sampling method utilizing computer based randomisation. Screw PFN and helical PFN were used for internal fixation with 30 patients in each group.
RESULTS: Both groups were similar in respect of age, gender, fracture classification, quality of fracture reduction, duration of hospitalization, post-operative complications, residual/late deformity as well as functional assessment. However, mean duration of surgery was significantly lower (23.1%) in helical PFN group as compared to screw PFN group (43.32 ± 8.20 min vs. 35.20 ± 6.03 min, p < 0.001). Furthermore, mean blood loss was not significant in either of the study groups but it was significantly lesser (30.1%) in helical PFN group as compared to screw PFN group (77.80 ± 17.39 ml vs. 59.80 ± 14.96 ml, p < 0.001). Also, mean number of images taken was significantly lower (58.7%) in helical PFN group as compared to screw PFN group (29.52 ± 4.85 no vs. 18.60 ± 3.12 no, t = 9.47; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Both screw PFN and helical PFN are equally effective implants in internal fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in any of the outcome measures. However, helical PFN group fared marginally better in terms of operative time, blood loss and imaging required.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 31316254      PMCID: PMC6611961          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0976-5662


  39 in total

1.  Intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: one or two lag screws.

Authors:  Erik N Kubiak; Mathew Bong; Samuel S Park; Fred Kummer; Kenneth Egol; Kenneth J Koval
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 2.  Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation. Review of literature.

Authors:  I B Schipper; R K Marti; Chr van der Werken
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.586

3.  A ten-year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur.

Authors:  M CLEVELAND; D M BOSWORTH; F R THOMPSON; H J WILSON; T ISHIZUKA
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1959-12       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures.

Authors:  R K Simmermacher; A M Bosch; C Van der Werken
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.586

5.  Dynamic hip screw in the management of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric neck of femur fractures.

Authors:  R Willoughby
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.586

6.  An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture.

Authors:  O Johnell; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Complications following the treatment of trochanteric fractures with the gamma nail.

Authors:  Beatrix Hesse; Andrè Gächter
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2004-10-23       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Implant-related fractures of the femur following hip fracture surgery.

Authors:  C M Robinson; C I Adams; M Craig; W Doward; M C C Clarke; J Auld
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture.

Authors:  G Al-yassari; R J Langstaff; J W M Jones; M Al-Lami
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.586

10.  International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Olof Johnell; Chris De Laet; Bengt Jonsson; Anders Oden; Alan K Ogelsby
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 6.741

View more
  3 in total

1.  [Reasons of the guide pin eccentricity of helical blade during proximal femoral nail anti-rotation internal fixation for femoral intertrochanteric fractures].

Authors:  Xin Wang; Yingqi Zhang; Shouchao Du; Shimin Zhang; Kai Chen; Zhiyuan Wang; Feng Yuan; Liming Cheng
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-08-15

Review 2.  Surgical interventions for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sharon R Lewis; Richard Macey; Joseph Lewis; Jamie Stokes; James R Gill; Jonathan A Cook; William Gp Eardley; Martyn J Parker; Xavier L Griffin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-02-10

3.  The factors that affect blood loss in intertrochanteric fractures treated with proximal femoral nail in the elderly.

Authors:  Harun Yasin Tüzün; Ahmet Burak Bilekli; Ömer Erşen
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 3.693

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.