Sertan Hancıoğlu1, Kadir Gem2, Hakan Koray Tosyali3, Güvenir Okçu3. 1. Orthopedics and Traumatology, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health Izmir Provincial Health Directorate Izmir University of Health Sciences Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. 2. Orthopedics and Traumatology Clinic, Alasehir State Hospital, Manisa, Turkey. 3. Orthopedics and Traumatology, Celal Bayar Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Manisa, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of AO/OTA type 31A2 fractures treated by the use of trochanteric nails either with a blade or a screw. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was designed retrospectively. Between May 2007 and May 2014, a total of 144 patients with trochanteric fractures were admitted to the clinic, and only 65 of them met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two of them (blade group) were treated with a helical blade and the rest of the 33 patients (screw group) were treated with a screw. The mean ages of the patients were 76.01 and 75.82, respectively (p = 0.905). The mean follow-up time was 27.6 months (blade group: 34.2 ± 19.1 months; screw group: 18.6 ± 7.9 months; p < 0.001). Between these two groups, we evaluated the differences in tip apex distances (TAD), calcar-referenced tip-apex distances (Cal-TAD), implant positions, cut-out rates, and implant failures. Functional outcomes were measured with the help of the Harris Hip Score. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between the blade and screw groups by means of cutting out, implant positions, and varus collapse. Cutting out was seen in a total of six patients (blade group n = 2; screw group = 4; p = 0.672) and varus collapse in nine patients (blade group n = 5, screw group n = 4; p = 0.733). Harris Hip Scores were similar between the two groups (blade group: 72.70 ± 18.43; screw group: 80.83 ± 18.75; p = 0.84). Thieme. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of AO/OTA type 31A2 fractures treated by the use of trochanteric nails either with a blade or a screw. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was designed retrospectively. Between May 2007 and May 2014, a total of 144 patients with trochanteric fractures were admitted to the clinic, and only 65 of them met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two of them (blade group) were treated with a helical blade and the rest of the 33 patients (screw group) were treated with a screw. The mean ages of the patients were 76.01 and 75.82, respectively (p = 0.905). The mean follow-up time was 27.6 months (blade group: 34.2 ± 19.1 months; screw group: 18.6 ± 7.9 months; p < 0.001). Between these two groups, we evaluated the differences in tip apex distances (TAD), calcar-referenced tip-apex distances (Cal-TAD), implant positions, cut-out rates, and implant failures. Functional outcomes were measured with the help of the Harris Hip Score. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between the blade and screw groups by means of cutting out, implant positions, and varus collapse. Cutting out was seen in a total of six patients (blade group n = 2; screw group = 4; p = 0.672) and varus collapse in nine patients (blade group n = 5, screw group n = 4; p = 0.733). Harris Hip Scores were similar between the two groups (blade group: 72.70 ± 18.43; screw group: 80.83 ± 18.75; p = 0.84). Thieme. All rights reserved.