scholarly journals Treatment of intertrochanteric femur fracture with closed external fixation in high-risk geriatric patients: can it be the most reliable method that reduces mortality to minimum compared to proximal femoral nail and hemiarthroplasty?

Medicine ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. e28369
Author(s):  
Akar Bedrettin ◽  
Fatih Sahin ◽  
Mucahid Osman Yucel
Author(s):  
Sawai Singh ◽  
Ram Chander

Background: Intertrochantric fractures are the most frequently operated fractures and has the highest mortality and morbidity rates. Evaluation functional outcome of helical fixation pfn a2 in proximal femur fracture in elderly Methods: Hospital based prospective randomized comparative study conducted on 30 patients with  Close  stable &unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture. Results: As per HHS, we have found that 76.67% cases (23) under excellent category and 20.00% (6) good and 3.33% (1) fair of HHS. Conclusion: We can conclude that the PROXIMAL FEMORAL NAIL ANTIROTATION2 is after proper training and technique a safe and easy implant option for treatment of complex peritertrochanteric fractures. Keywords: HHS, Femur, fracture


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-358
Author(s):  
Dr. Siddharth Bhaginath Jadhav ◽  
Dr. Rahul Ajit Damle ◽  
Dr. Janmajay Dalal ◽  
Dr. Saumitra Dubey ◽  
Dr. Abhijeet Nalkar ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 2966-2968
Author(s):  
Mudir Khan ◽  
Muhammad Siraj ◽  
Abbas Ali

Background: Hip bone fractures are the main cause of concern on a worldwide level. The main two operative techniques involve dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail technique. Aim: To compare the dynamic hip screw with proximal femoral nail technique in intertrochanteric femur fracture patients. Study design: Retrospective study Place and duration of study: Department of Orthopaedics, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar from 1-7-2019 to 30-12- 2021. Methodology: Seventy patients were enrolled and they were divided in two groups; Group 1 patients were operated with dynamic hip screw (DHS) while group 2 patients were operated by proximal femoral nail (PFN) technique. The detailed pre and post-operative clinical information including blood loss, incision size, Harris hip score and rate of complication was documented. Results: The mean age of patients was 58.62±6.71 year with more male patients than females. The Harris hip score of proximal femoral nail technique was better than distal hip screw. The incision length of distal hip screw cases was 7.61±0.89 in comparison to 4.72±0.73 in proximal femoral nail technique cases with a longer duration of surgery and inter-operative blood loss in case of distal hip screw cases. Conclusion: Proximal femoral nail technique is comparatively better than the distal hip screw procedure. Keywords: Proximal femoral nail technique, distal hip screw, Hip fracture


Author(s):  
Sawai Singh ◽  
Raghuveer Meena

Background: Intertrochanteric femur fracture incidence has increased due to increased life expectancy and osteoporosis. Methods- The present study was prospectively carried out in 60 consecutive patients of Fracture Intertrochanter Femur and treated with Hemiarthroplasty with Cemented Bipolar Prosthesis and Proximal Femoral Nail. Results: The age of the patients in present study was in range of 60 - 80 years. There was a preponderance of female in present study in both groups. The mean duratioin of surgery in the Bipolar group (91.24±9.21Minutes) was much More That In PFN (53.12 ±6.02Minutes) Group. All patients of Bipolar group was discharged between 4 to 9 days and in PFN group 4 to 12 days after surgery. The average harris hip score in PFN group is 87.32±4.13 and in Bipolar group is 85.02±7.92. Final functional outcome were better in PFN group (P value 0.01) than by Bipolar group and significant. Conclusion: The outcomes of the stable fractures treated with either Bipolar or PFN were similar. Unstable comminuted fractures treated with Bipolar showed significantly better outcomes with all patients having good results. Keywords: Hip Arthroplasty, PFN, Complication


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 548-552
Author(s):  
Dr. Chittanand Mendhe ◽  
Dr. Sushant Ghumare ◽  
Dr. Imran Shaikh ◽  
Dr. Mohit Upadhyaya

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (27) ◽  
pp. 4629-4635
Author(s):  
Badoo A R ◽  
Naveed Bashir ◽  
Syed Baasit Shafi Shah ◽  
Mohammad Ahsan

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3i) ◽  
pp. 600-606
Author(s):  
Dr. Arvind Kumar ◽  
Dr. Anurag Jain ◽  
Dr. Aditya Agrawal ◽  
Dr. Malkesh Sah ◽  
Dr. Anirudh Bansal ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document