Yaniv Warschawski1, Tal Frenkel Rutenberg2, Shai Factor1, Adirian Tudor1, Zachary Sharfman3, Samuel Morgan3, Adi Lichtenstein1, Nimrod Snir1. 1. Orthopedic Department, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital, Affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2. Orthopedic Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus regarding the optimal device for displaced intracapsular hip fractures. This retrospective study compared two techniques (1) cannulated cancellous screw (CCS), and (2) Targon Femoral Neck (TFN) plate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding gender, operational data, complications, pain, Quality of life and function scores were retrieved. RESULTS: 103 patients were included, 42 were treated using CCS, compared to 61 treated using TFN. Operative time shorter for CCS (p = 0.019). Complication rates were not different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: As CCS method take shorter operating time and reduced costs, CCS should be used for the treatment of displaced ICHF.
INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus regarding the optimal device for displaced intracapsular hip fractures. This retrospective study compared two techniques (1) cannulated cancellous screw (CCS), and (2) Targon Femoral Neck (TFN) plate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding gender, operational data, complications, pain, Quality of life and function scores were retrieved. RESULTS: 103 patients were included, 42 were treated using CCS, compared to 61 treated using TFN. Operative time shorter for CCS (p = 0.019). Complication rates were not different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: As CCS method take shorter operating time and reduced costs, CCS should be used for the treatment of displaced ICHF.