Literature DB >> 35958501

Effect of proximal femoral nail antirotation on clinical outcome, inflammatory factors and myocardial injury markers in patients with femoral trochanteric fracture.

Kuanglin Li1, Huanhong Yang1, Zhaobo Jiang1, Wei Peng2, Xing Zhou1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences between proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and dynamic hip screw (DHS) in treatment of femoral trochanteric fracture and analyze the factors influencing recovery after PFNA treatment.
METHODS: Eighty-six patients with femoral trochanteric fracture admitted to Taizhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine between January 2019 and June 2021 were enrolled in the study and assigned into a PFNA group and DHS group (n=43 in each group) before undergoing these treatments. The clinical efficacy, inflammatory factors, and myocardial injury markers were compared between the two groups. The influencing factors on recovery after PFNA treatment were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Compared to the DHS group, the PFNA group had shorter surgical time, length of stay in hospital, postoperative weight-bearing time, time of healing and detumescence, and less intraoperative blood loss (all P<0.001). The incidence of post-surgical complications with PFNA was lower than with DHS (P<0.05). The serum levels of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein and tumor necrosis factor-αof the PFNA group were lower than those of the DHS group (all P<0.05). Moreover, the serum levels of cardiac troponin T, creatine kinase-MB and myoglobin in the PFNA group were also lower than for the DHS (all P<0.05). At the first, third, and sixth months after surgery, the Harris scores for PFNA were higher than for DHS (all P<0.05). The univariate and multivariate analysis showed that instability of fracture, history of osteoporosis, excessive intraoperative bleeding, poor compliance with rehabilitation exercise, and long time from injury to surgery were risk factors for poor recovery following PFNA treatment for patients with femoral trochanteric fracture.
CONCLUSION: Compared to DHS, PFNA had better clinical efficacy and gave lower serum levels of inflammatory factors and myocardial injury markers. Fracture classification, history of osteoporosis, intraoperative amount of bleeding, compliance of rehabilitation exercise, and time from injury to surgery were closely associated with recovery following PFNA treatment. AJTR
Copyright © 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Femoral intertrochanteric fracture; dynamic hip screw; proximal femoral nail antirotation; recovery effects; risk factors

Year:  2022        PMID: 35958501      PMCID: PMC9360835     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transl Res        ISSN: 1943-8141            Impact factor:   3.940


  27 in total

1.  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

2.  Proximal femoral nails antirotation, Gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K-L Ma; X Wang; F-J Luan; H-T Xu; Y Fang; J Min; H-X Luan; F Yang; H Zheng; S-J He
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 2.256

Review 3.  The Effect of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy on Cardiac Biomarkers: Implications for the Identification of Myocardial Recovery.

Authors:  Luise Holzhauser; Gene Kim; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2018-08

Review 4.  Comparative outcome of PFNA, Gamma nails, PCCP, Medoff plate, LISS and dynamic hip screws for fixation in elderly trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Alisara Arirachakaran; Tanawat Amphansap; Pichaya Thanindratarn; Peerapong Piyapittayanun; Phutsapong Srisawat; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-04-22

5.  PFNA vs. DHS helical blade for elderly patients with osteoporotic femoral intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  H Li; Q Wang; G-G Dai; H Peng
Journal:  Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.507

6.  Clinical and biochemical prediction of early fatal outcome following hip fracture in the elderly.

Authors:  Ove Talsnes; Fredrik Hjelmstedt; Ola E Dahl; Are Hugo Pripp; Olav Reikerås
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Cemented hemiarthroplasty versus proximal femoral nail antirotation in the management of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly: a case control study.

Authors:  Zhuangzhuang Jin; Shuoyan Xu; Yue Yang; Yingliang Wei; Yicheng Tian; Ziyuan Wang; Lunhao Bai
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  A Comparative Analysis of Femoral Neck System and Three Cannulated Screws Fixation in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures: A Six-Month Follow-Up.

Authors:  Ya-Zhong Zhang; Yan Lin; Chao Li; Xi-Jun Yue; Gao-Yu Li; Bin Wang; Yun-Qing Wang; Zi-Qiang Zhu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 2.071

9.  Metabolic Shock in Elderly Pertrochanteric or Intertrochanteric Surgery. Comparison of Three Surgical Methods. Is there a Much Safer?

Authors:  Gómez-Garrido David; Bisaccia Michele; Ripani Umberto; Florin Cioancă; Schiavone Andrea; Ciotta Alfonso; Ibañéz-Vicente Cristina; Medina-Lorca Maria; Herrera-Molepecers Juan Antonio; Rollo Giuseppe; Meccariello Luigi
Journal:  Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2020-12-31

Review 10.  Optimal surgical methods to treat intertrochanteric fracture: a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on 36 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Yan-Xiao Cheng; Xia Sheng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.