A Comparative Study between Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nailing in the Management of Intertrochanteric Fractures of the Femur: A Hospital-Based Prospective Study
Authors/Creators
- 1. Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, Bhagwan Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences, Pawapuri, Nalanda, Bihar, India
- 2. Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, Narayan Medical College & Hospital, Jamuhar, Rohtas, Sasaram, Bihar, India
- 3. Professor and Head of Department, Department of Orthopaedics, Bhagwan Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences, Pawapuri, Nalanda, Bihar, India
- 4. Professor and Head of Department, Department of Orthopaedics, Narayan Medical College & Hospital, Jamuhar, Rohtas, Sasaram, Bihar, India
Description
Background: The incidence of hip fractures has been increasing due to higher life expectancy and a rising incidence of motor vehicle accidents. Approximately half of the hip fractures in the elderly are intertrochanteric fractures. Aims and Objectives: The present study was done to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients treated by PFN and DHS for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Methods and Materials: The present prospective study was conducted on 60 patients with stable intertrochantric femur fractures attending out-patient departments at a tertiary centre. The institutional ethical committee granted ethical approval. Results: In this study, the ratio of men to women was 2:1. We observed that low-velocity trauma, such as falls, caused frequent fractures, i.e., 86.67% of injuries were due to low velocity trauma and 13.33% were due to high velocity trauma, with the right side (66.67%) being the most common involvement. Conclusion: We conclude that in stable intertrochanteric fractures, both the PFN and DHS have similar outcomes; however, the PFN has a better functional outcome with an unstable fracture.
Abstract (English)
Background: The incidence of hip fractures has been increasing due to higher life expectancy and a rising incidence of motor vehicle accidents. Approximately half of the hip fractures in the elderly are intertrochanteric fractures. Aims and Objectives: The present study was done to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients treated by PFN and DHS for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Methods and Materials: The present prospective study was conducted on 60 patients with stable intertrochantric femur fractures attending out-patient departments at a tertiary centre. The institutional ethical committee granted ethical approval. Results: In this study, the ratio of men to women was 2:1. We observed that low-velocity trauma, such as falls, caused frequent fractures, i.e., 86.67% of injuries were due to low velocity trauma and 13.33% were due to high velocity trauma, with the right side (66.67%) being the most common involvement. Conclusion: We conclude that in stable intertrochanteric fractures, both the PFN and DHS have similar outcomes; however, the PFN has a better functional outcome with an unstable fracture.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue8,Article64.pdf
Files
(659.7 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:029cb091e50d7753e8587579caff8797
|
659.7 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-07-10
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue8,Article64.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Leung K. Sub trochanteric fractures .In: Bucholz RW, Heckman JD, Court-Brown C, editors. Rockwood and Green's fractures in adults. 6th ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott: Williams &Wilkins;2006.p.1827–44. 2. Lavelle DG. Fractures and dislocations of the hip. In: Campbell WC, Canale ST, Beaty JH, editors. Campbell's operative orthopaedics. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2008. p.3237–308. 3. Hip fracture in adults: Epidemiology and medical management. (2020). Accessed: December 25,2022:https://www.uptodate.com/contents/hip-fracture-in-adults-epidemiology-andmedical management? Topic Ref=226 & source=see 4. Clement ND, Aitken S, Duckworth AD, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM: Multiple fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012, 94:231-6. 10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27381 5. Chughtai M, Khlopas A, Mont MA: Fixation methods in the management of hip fractures. Lancet. 2017, 389:1493-1494. 10.1016/S0140- 6736(17)30551-2 6. Sonmez M M, Camur S, Erturer E, Ugurlar M, Kara A, Ozturk I: Strategies for proximal femoral nailing of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: lateral decubitus position or traction table. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017, 25:e37-44. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00691 7. Sharma A, Sethi A, Sharma S. Treatment of stable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur with proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw: a comparative study. Rev Bras Ortop. 2017 Nov 8;53(4):477-81. 8. Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C, Riand N, Stern R, HoR Meyer P. inter trochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail? A randomised, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail J Orthop Trauma, 2002 Jul;16(6):386–93. 9. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Mar;(348):87-94. 10. Zou J, Xu Y, Yang H: A comparison of proximal femoral nail anti rotation anddynamic hip screw devices in trochanteric fractures. J Int Med Res. 2009, 37:1057- 64.10.1177/147323000903700410 11. Klinger HM, Baums MH, Eckert M, Neugebauer R: A comparativestudy of unstable per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with dynamic hip screw (DHS) and trochanteric butt-press platevs. proximal femoral nail (PFN)[German].ZentralblChir.2005,130:301- 6.10.1055/s-2005-836784 12. Xu YZ, Geng DC, Mao HQ, Zhu XS, Yang HL: A comparison of the proximal femoral nail anti rotation device and dynamic hip screw inthe treatment of unstable per trochanteric fracture. J Int Med Res. 2010, 38:1266- 75.10.1177 /147323 001003800408 13. Hesse B, Gächter A: Complications following the treatment oftrochanteric fractures with the gamma nail . Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.2004, 124:692-8. 10.1007 /s00402-004-0744-8 14. Zhao C, Liu DY, Guo JJ, Li LP, Zheng YF, Yang HB, et al. [Comparison of proximal femoral nail and dynamic hip screw for treating intertrochanteric fractures]. Zhongguo Gu Shang.2009Jul;22(7):535-7. [Article in Chinese]. 15. Pan X-h, Xiao D-m, Lin B-w: Dynamic hip screws (DHS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of femur in elderly patients. Chin J Orthop Trauma, 2004; 7: 785–89. 16. Giraud B, Dehoux E, Jovenin N, Madi K, Harisboure A, Usandizaga G, Segal P.[ Pertrochanteric fractures: a randomized prospective study comparing dynamic screw plate and intramedullary fixation]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot.2005Dec;91(8):732-6. [Article in French]. 17. Karanam V, Kumar UA, Teja SP, Teja CV. PFN v/s DHS in stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures: A comparative study. Int J Orthop Sci. 2019;5(2):750-4. 18. Mavrogenis AF, Panagopoulos GN, Megaloikonomos PD, Igoumenou VG, Galanopoulos I, Vottis CT, et al. Complications After Hip Nailing for Fractures. Orthopedics. 2016JanFeb;39(1):e108-16. 19. Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, Malik H, Donnachie N. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail anti rotation (PFNA):a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures.Injury.2009 Apr;40(4):428-32. 20. Das PB, Singh A, Pani S: Osteo synthesis of intertrochanteric fractures by PFN and DHS - a prospective randomized comparative study. J Orthop Trauma Rehabil. 2020,10.1177/2210491720971832.