Literature DB >> 7497366

Fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: gamma nail versus dynamic hip screw. A randomized, prospective study.

P J O'Brien1, R N Meek, P A Blachut, H M Broekhuyse, S Sabharwal.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of the gamma nail (GN) to the dynamic hip screw (DHS) in the management of intertrochanteric hip fractures.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective clinical trial with a mean follow-up of 52 weeks (range from 11 to 82 weeks).
SETTING: A university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred and one patients with 102 fractures: 49 fractures were treated with the DHS and 53 fractures were treated with the GN.
INTERVENTIONS: Fracture fixation with the DHS or the GN. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of duration of operation, blood loss, early and late complications, functional outcome and duration of hospital stay.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to intraoperative blood loss, days in hospital, time to union and eventual functional outcome. The length of the procedure and fluoroscopy time were longer for the GN group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the GN and the DHS can be used effectively for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. In this study the DHS was associated with a lower risk of local complications and should still be considered to be the implant of choice for patients with intertrochanteric fractures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7497366

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  19 in total

1.  Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices.

Authors:  L Audigé; B Hanson; M F Swiontkowski
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-05-07       Impact factor: 3.075

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.  A meta-analysis of the Gamma nail and dynamic hip screw in treating peritrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Ming Liu; Zhiming Yang; Fuxing Pei; Fuguo Huang; Shiqiang Chen; Zhou Xiang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  A comparison of two fixation methods for femoral trochanteric fractures: a new generation intramedullary system vs sliding hip screw.

Authors:  Christian Carulli; Federico Piacentini; Tommaso Paoli; Roberto Civinini; Massimo Innocenti
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2017-05-30

5.  Intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: a comparison of two implant designs.

Authors:  Nicolas E Efstathopoulos; Vassilios S Nikolaou; John T Lazarettos
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Intertrochanteric fractures: a review of fixation methods.

Authors:  Senthil Nathan Sambandam; Jayadev Chandrasekharan; Varatharaj Mounasamy; Cyril Mauffrey
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-03-30

7.  Type II Intertrochanteric Fractures: Proximal Femoral Nailing (PFN) Versus Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS).

Authors:  Cyril Jonnes; Shishir Sm; Syed Najimudeen
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2016-01

8.  Effect of varus and valgus alignment on implant loading after proximal femur fracture fixation.

Authors:  Meir Marmor; Kate Liddle; Jenni Buckley; Amir Matityahu
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-04-27

Review 9.  Influence of osteoporosis on fracture fixation--a systematic literature review.

Authors:  J Goldhahn; N Suhm; S Goldhahn; M Blauth; B Hanson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Is a sliding hip screw or im nail the preferred implant for intertrochanteric fracture fixation?

Authors:  Brian Aros; Anna N A Tosteson; Daniel J Gottlieb; Kenneth J Koval
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.