Literature DB >> 9619459

Intramedullary fixation of high subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a study comparing two implant designs, the Gamma nail and the intramedullary hip screw.

J Rantanen1, H T Aro.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare two implants, the Gamma nail and the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS ), in the treatment of high subtrochanteric femoral fractures. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized clinical study.
METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients with high subtrochanteric fractures of the Russell-Taylor Types 1A and 1B were treated with intramedullary fixation. The first fifty patients were treated with the Gamma nail and the next thirty-seven with the IMHS. The results of these operations were evaluated after a minimum follow-up of twelve months, and special emphasis was put on the complication rate.
RESULTS: The number of noninfectious complications (intraoperative fractures, postoperative refractures and fixation failures) was significantly higher (p = 0.037) in the Gamma group (11 of 50, 22 percent) than in the IMHS group (2 of 37, 5 percent). The complication most often associated with the Gamma nail, postoperative fracture of the femoral shaft (six in our Gamma group), was not encountered with the use of the IMHS. The Gamma group also included three cases of intraoperative trochanteric extension of the fracture versus none in the IMHS group. The IMHS group included two mechanical fixation failures.
CONCLUSIONS: The lower complication rate associated with the use of the IMHS implant could be attributable in part to the learning curve in the use of intramedullary implants. However, we consider that the evolution of the implant design contributes to the result.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9619459     DOI: 10.1097/00005131-199805000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  6 in total

1.  Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. A comparison of the Gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw: short-term outcome in 58 patients.

Authors:  I Saarenpää; T Heikkinen; P Jalovaara
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-04-22       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  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

3.  Biopolymer augmentation of the lag screw in the treatment of femoral neck fractures--a biomechanical in-vitro study.

Authors:  A Paech; E Wilde; A P Schulz; G Heinrichs; R Wendlandt; C Queitsch; B Kienast; Ch Jürgens
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.175

4.  Comparing two intramedullary devices for treating trochanteric fractures: a prospective study.

Authors:  Konstantinos G Makridis; Vasileios Georgaklis; Miltiadis Georgoussis; Vasileios Mandalos; Vasileios Kontogeorgakos; Leonidas Badras
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-02-18       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  Unstable subtrochanteric fractures--gamma nail versus dynamic condylar screw.

Authors:  Andrés J Pakuts
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-08-26       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Methods to avoid gamma nail complications.

Authors:  Raffaele Pascarella; Giuseppe Cucca; Alessandra Maresca; Matteo Commessatti; Giovanni Bracci; Stefano Boriani; Enrico Gozzi
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2008-05-21
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.