A comparison study of proximal femoral nail and dynamic hip screw devices in unstable trochanteric fractures

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 413
Author(s):  
MohamedA Mostafa ◽  
HassanH Ahmed ◽  
HaniA.M Bassiooni ◽  
ElsayedM Mohamady
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Hip Screw ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail ◽  
Comparison Study ◽  
Trochanteric Fractures ◽  
Femoral Nail ◽  
Hip Screw

scholarly journals Randomized comparative study to evaluate the role of proximal femoral nail and dynamic hip screw in unstable trochanteric fractures

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Shivanand C Mayi ◽  
Sachin Shah ◽  
Sadashiv R Jidgekar ◽  
Arunkumar Kulkarni
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Trochanteric Fracture ◽  
Dynamic Hip Screw ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail ◽  
Trochanteric Fractures ◽  
Stable Fixation ◽  
Femoral Nail ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Hip Screw

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Treatment of unstable trochanteric fracture is much more challenging than stable fracture. These fractures require stable fixation to minimize the fracture and implant related complications. Need of this study is to assess the suitable implant for stable fixation of unstable trochanteric fracture with less intra and postoperative complications and good functional outcome.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> In this prospective randomized comparative study, 64 patients were distributed into two groups. Group A consisted of patients treated by proximal femoral nail (PFN) (n=32) and group B treated by dynamic hip screw (DHS) (n=32). All the patients were evaluated preoperatively and surgery was done according to the group they were allotted. Post-operative follow up was done at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Average age of the patients in this study was 51.26±10.24 year. In this study patients were followed up for an average of 10.87±2.61 month. The duration of surgery was shorter in PFN group. Weight bearing was earlier in PFN group than DHS group. Mean functional ability score was better in PFN group with significant gain in function earlier as compared to DHS group.</p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> PFN is a better implant for internal fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures which allows early mobilization and has got better functional outcome score in early postoperative period than DHS

scholarly journals Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) versus Proximal Femoral Nail Anti-rotation (PFNA) Fixation for Unstable (Evans-Jensen II and III) Inter-trochanteric Fractures of Femur in Elderly

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-225
Author(s):  
Manoj Kandel ◽  
Robin Shrestha ◽  
Krishna Prasad Poudel ◽  
Shrawan Thapa ◽  
Sushil Thapa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Average Length ◽  
Trochanteric Fracture ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Dynamic Hip Screw ◽  
Proximal Femoral Nail ◽  
Trochanteric Fractures ◽  
Femoral Nail ◽  
Fixation Group ◽  
Hip Screw

Background: Dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) are the two most commonly used fixation devices for inter-trochanteric fracture of femur. However, many clinical studies have shown lack of differences in the  clinical outcome consistently with between these two fixation techniques. The main objective of this study is to compare the results of dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) fixation in elderly patients with unstable inter-trochanteric fractures of femur. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent operative management for inter- trochanteric fractures of femur in our hospital between February 2013 and September 2017. Elderly   patients (Age >60yrs) with unstable inter-trochanteric fracture of femur treated either with DHS fixation or with PFNA fixation were included and divided into two groups: DHS fixation group and PFNA fixation group. The comparative statistical analysis was done between two group using following   parameters: average length of the incision, operation time, blood loss, fracture healing time, and degree of postoperative functional recovery. Results: The mean follow-up period, in DHS fixation group was 16 month (range 12 to 24 months) and in PFNA fixation group was 14 months (range 12 to 18 months). The differences between two groups regarding average length of the incision, operation time, and blood loss were statistically significant (p<0.05) and better in PFNA group whereas the differences between two groups regarding fracture healing time and the degree of postoperative functional recovery were not statistically significant (p >0.05). Conclusions: PFNA fixation may be  better than DHS fixation for the treatment of unstable inter-trochanteric fractures of the femur in the elderly. However, the application and usage of DHS fixation could not be neglected and the choice of treatment depends upon the systemic condition and socioeconomic status of the patient, patient’s preferences, surgeon’s experience and availability of treatment facility.

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