386 Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) Versus Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) In Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures of Femur -A Comparative Clinical Study

Introduction The goal of treatment of an intertrochanteric femoral fracture is restoration of patient's mobility as early as possible. The dynamic hip screw (DHS) has been used for several decades to treat these fractures. Proximal femoral nails (PFN) are reported to have an advantage in such fractures. This study aims at comparing the results of unstable intertrochanteric fractures femur treated with PFN and DHS. Method This was a prospective, randomized study which includes sixty patients. All patients were available for follow up with 30 patients in each group. The data about intraoperative blood loss, time to union, leg length shortening was collected. The functional outcome at the end of one year was evaluated using Harris Hip Score. Results Blood loss, duration of surgery, time to union and leg length shortening was significantly less in the patients treated with PFN (p < 0.05). The mean harris hip score for patients managed with PFN was significantly more than in DHS group, 12 months after surgery (p = 0.05). Conclusions PFN requires a smaller incision, lesser operative time, less blood loss and has improved functional results. In our opinion PFN may be a better fixation device for most of the unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures.

NEW GENERATION NAIL VS. PLATE IN THE TREATMENT OF UNSTABLE INTERTROCHANTERIC FEMORAL FRACTURE

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare antirotator proximal femoral nail (A-PFN) with antirotator dynamic hip screw (A-DHS). Methods: Fourteen proximal femur models with type 31/A2 fracture, according to the AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification, were separated into two groups. Group 1 bones (n = 7) were fixed with A-PFN and Group 2 (n = 7) with A-DHS. A 5 mm/min axial load was applied to femur heads using a testing device. Results: Two of the seven models in the A-PFN group fractured at the proximal, and the other five at distal locking screw level. All models in the A-DHS group fractured at the tightened distal screw region. The median fracture load for the A-PFN group was 132.1 N (97.1-173.69 N range), and for the A-DHS group it was 81.7 N (75.15-89.12 N range). Conclusion: A-PFN-treated unstable intertrochanteric fractured models resisted to higher levels of axial load than the A-DHS-treated group, with statistically significant difference. However, clinical studies are required to support these results. Level of Evidence V, Biomechanical study.