Literature DB >> 35891974

A comparative study of Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) versus Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.

Md Faraz Jamil1, Julfiqar Mohd1, Mazhar Abbas1, Yasir Salam Siddiqui1, Mohammad Jesan Khan1.   

Abstract

Trochanteric hip fractures have become very common with 35-40% of these fractures being unstable. Trochanteric fractures, especially unstable ones are associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity and thus remain an inordinate challenge for surgeon to treat these fractures with proper choice of implant. Aim of the study was to compare the proximal femoral nail and dynamic condylar screw in the management of unstable trochanteric fractures. Our study was a prospective comparative study which included 26 patients with fresh (≤3 weeks old) unstable trochanteric fractures AO 31A2 and AO 31A3, with age ≥18 years of both sexes. Eleven patients in DCS and fifteen patients in PFN were included. Harris hip score was used to compare functional outcomes. Average age of patients in DCS group was 59.82±11.59 years and PFN was 54.2±16.22 years. AO 31A2 fracture pattern (63.64%) was more common than AO 31A3 in DCS group and AO 31A3 fracture pattern (60.00%) was more common than AO 31A2 in PFN group. Mean operative time for DCS was 96.36±15.51 minutes and for PFN it was 79.67±12.02 minutes with P-value of 0.003. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group were lost to follow up. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group died. Seven out of 11 (63.64%) patients in DCS group and 13 out of 15 (86.60%) patients in PFN group were available for final follow up. Union seen in 2 (28.57%) patients with DCS and 12 (92.31%) patients fixed with PFN with P-value of 0.007. Mean HHS of 62.29±24.26 in DCS and 86.92±11.65 in PFN with P-value of 0.037. Patients with combined excellent and good HHS in DCS group and PFN group were 2 (28.57%) and 11 (84.62%) respectively. Non-union was seen in 5 (71.43%) patients fixed with DCS and 1 (7.69%) patient fixed with PFN. Implant failure was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group in which barrel plate was broken in 2 (28.57%) patients and lag screw cut out through femoral head in 1 (14.29%) patient and 1 (7.69%) patient in PFN group due to varus collapse and complete backout of screw. Varus collapse was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group and 4 (30.76%) patients in PFN group. Proximal femoral nail is better implant as compared to dynamic condylar screw which was statistically significant in terms of lesser operative time, higher union rate and better functional outcome. So PFN is a better implant choice for unstable trochanteric fractures when compared with DCS. IJBT
Copyright © 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Harris hip score; Unstable trochanteric fractures; dynamic condylar screw; proximal femoral nail

Year:  2022        PMID: 35891974      PMCID: PMC9301162     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Burns Trauma        ISSN: 2160-2026


  18 in total

1.  Is helical blade nailing superior to locked minimally invasive plating in unstable pertrochanteric fractures?

Authors:  Matthias Knobe; Wolf Drescher; Nicole Heussen; Richard Martin Sellei; Hans-Christoph Pape
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures.

Authors:  Henry Wynn Jones; Philip Johnston; Martyn Parker
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-02-22       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  [Case-control study on dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients].

Authors:  Yu-jun Li; Zhi-bin Li; Wen-hao Yu; Chun-fang Bo
Journal:  Zhongguo Gu Shang       Date:  2013-12

4.  Stable fixation of intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  H Kaufer; L S Matthews; D Sonstegard
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Unstable Intertrochanteric Fracture Fixation - Is Proximal Femoral Locked Compression Plate Better Than Dynamic Hip Screw.

Authors:  Naiyer Asif; Sohail Ahmad; Owais Ahmad Qureshi; Latif Zafar Jilani; Tajdar Hamesh; Tariq Jameel
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-01-01

6.  World-wide projections for hip fracture.

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

7.  Cephalomedullary nail versus sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Authors:  Ivan Tjun Huat Chua; Ganesan Naidu Rajamoney; Ernest Beng Kee Kwek
Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.118

Review 8.  A meta-analysis of percutenous compression plate versus intramedullary nail for treatment of intertrochanteric HIP fractures.

Authors:  Jie Shen; Chao Hu; Shengpeng Yu; Ke Huang; Zhao Xie
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 6.071

9.  Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection.

Authors:  C Cooper; G Campion; L J Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractureswith Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation II: Our Experience in Indian Patients.

Authors:  G N Kiran Kumar; Gaurav Sharma; Kavin Khatri; Kamran Farooque; Devendra Lakhotia; Vijay Sharma; Sanjay Meena
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2015-11-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.