InterTan Nail Versus Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-Asia in the Treatment of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures

Orthopedics ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-e292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng Zhang ◽  
Kairui Zhang ◽  
Yanfei Jia ◽  
Bin Yu ◽  
Wei Feng
Keyword(s):  
Proximal Femoral Nail ◽  
Trochanteric Fractures ◽  
Femoral Nail ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation ◽  
Intertan Nail

scholarly journals INTERTAN nail versus proximal femoral nail antirotation-Asia for intertrochanteric femur fractures in elderly patients with primary osteoporosis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 1297-1309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Zhang ◽  
Xianshang Zeng ◽  
Nan Zhang ◽  
Dan Zeng ◽  
Ping Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Primary Osteoporosis ◽  
Femur Fractures ◽  
Femoral Nail ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation ◽  
Intertan Nail

Objectives To compare the long-term functional and radiographic outcomes of the proximal femoral nail antirotation-Asia (PFNA-II) and INTERTAN nail (IT) in the management of intertrochanteric femoral fractures (IFFs) (AO/OTA Type 31A1.1-A2.3) in elderly patients with primary osteoporosis. Methods A retrospective comparative study was performed in our institution. From January 2009 to March 2012, 243 patients with osteoporosis (243 hips) with IFFs (AO/OTA Type 3.1A1.1-A2.3) underwent repair with either a PFNA-II or IT. Follow-up assessments were performed 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postoperatively and every year thereafter. All implant position changes were noted. Patient-related functional outcomes were evaluated based on the Harris hip score. Results In total, 174 patients with osteoporosis (IT, n = 86; PFNA-II, n = 88) were evaluated during a mean follow-up period of 40 months (range, 38–60 months). An increased risk of femoral shaft fracture after implant removal was observed at month 9 of follow-up in 0.0% and 4.4% of the IT and PFNA-II groups, respectively. This difference remained over time with rates of 1.1% and 6.8%, respectively, at the last follow-up. Conclusion The IT nail appears to be a reliable implant in the management of IFFs (AO/OTA Type 3.1A1.1-A2.3) in elderly patients with primary osteoporosis.

scholarly journals Comparative study between proximal femoral nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation in management of unstable trochanteric fractures

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj R. Kashid ◽  
Tushar Gogia ◽  
Anjan Prabhakara ◽  
Mohammad A. Jafri ◽  
Dilip S. Shaktawat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Functional Recovery ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail ◽  
Functional Evaluation ◽  
Trochanteric Fractures ◽  
Non Union ◽  
Femoral Nail ◽  
Walking Aids ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> <span lang="EN-GB">In the management of peri-trochanteric fractures, </span>intramedullary (IM) devices have proven advantage over <span lang="EN-GB">extramedullary devices. IM devices</span> allow for stable anatomical fixation of more comminuted fractures without shortening the abductor lever arm or changing the proximal femoral anatomy. Between IM devices like proximal femoral nail (PFN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA), the helical blade of latter is believed to provide stability, compression and rotational control of the fracture with higher cut out strength. The following study was undertaken in an attempt to compare these two types of Intra-medullary devices<span lang="EN-IN">.</span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Between January 2012 and June 2013, 50 patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria, were randomized into 2 groups to undergo CRIF with either standard PFN (n=25) or PFNA (n=25). They were compared in terms of demography, per-operative variables and postoperative parameters including functional evaluation till 1year postoperatively.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Background demographic variables, fracture type and pre-injury ambulatory status were comparable between the groups. Operative duration of surgery, amount of blood loss and number of fluoroscopic images were significantly lower in PFNA group as compared to PFN group. Post op complications like infection, non-union, cut out/z-effect, loss of reduction, re-operation and mortality rates didn’t differ significantly between the groups. Post op functional recovery as evaluated by pain, use of walking aids and Harris hip scores were similar in both groups<span lang="EN-IN">. </span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> PFNA significantly reduces the operative time, amount of blood loss and fluoroscopic imaging as compared to PFN. However PFNA offers no significant benefits over PFN in terms of post-operative functional recovery or complications<span lang="EN-IN">.</span></p>

A Comparison of Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation and Dynamic Hip Screw Devices in Trochanteric Fractures

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 1057-1064 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Zou ◽  
Y Xu ◽  
H Yang
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Trochanteric Fracture ◽  
Dynamic Hip Screw ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail ◽  
Trochanteric Fractures ◽  
Femoral Nail ◽  
Operation Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hip Screw ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation

This prospective, randomized study compared the functional outcome and complications associated with a proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) device with those of a traditional extramedullary device, the dynamic hip screw (DHS), in patients with trochanteric fracture. A total of 121 patients were randomized to the PFNA group ( n = 58) or the DHS group ( n = 63). Perioperative information and complications were recorded, and assessments of functional outcome were made. The DHS group required a longer operative time and was associated with greater blood loss than the PFNA group. The re-operation rate was lower in the PFNA group compared with the DHS group, especially in patients with unstable fractures, although there was no statistically significant difference in the overall complication rate between the two groups. There were no significant differences in functional outcome between the PFNA and the DHS groups. In conclusion, the PFNA device is useful in the treatment of trochanteric fractures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document