Comparison of Intramedullary and Extramedullary Fixation Devices in Unstable Trochanteric Fractures
Authors/Creators
- 1. Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar
- 2. Professor and HOD, Department of Orthopaedics, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar
Description
Objectives: The main objective of the study was to compare functional outcome and complications associated with a proximal femoral nail, an intramedullary device with those of a traditional extramedullary device, the dynamic hip screw, in patients with unstable trochanteric fracture. Method: In this prospective, randomized study, total of 86 patients were randomized to the intramedullary group [Group A (n = 40)] or the extramedullary group [Group B (n = 46)]. All relevant perioperative information and complications were recorded, and assessments of functional outcome were made. Results: The extramedullary group required a longer operative time (‘p’ value 0.001) and was associated with greater blood loss (‘p’ value 0.002) than the intramedullary group. The re-operation rate as well, was lower in the group A compared with the group B, although there were no statistically significant differences in the overall complication rate between the two groups (‘p’ value 0.221). There were no significant differences in functional outcome between both groups. Conclusions: The intramedullary device is useful in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures.
Abstract (English)
Objectives: The main objective of the study was to compare functional outcome and complications associated with a proximal femoral nail, an intramedullary device with those of a traditional extramedullary device, the dynamic hip screw, in patients with unstable trochanteric fracture. Method: In this prospective, randomized study, total of 86 patients were randomized to the intramedullary group [Group A (n = 40)] or the extramedullary group [Group B (n = 46)]. All relevant perioperative information and complications were recorded, and assessments of functional outcome were made. Results: The extramedullary group required a longer operative time (‘p’ value 0.001) and was associated with greater blood loss (‘p’ value 0.002) than the intramedullary group. The re-operation rate as well, was lower in the group A compared with the group B, although there were no statistically significant differences in the overall complication rate between the two groups (‘p’ value 0.221). There were no significant differences in functional outcome between both groups. Conclusions: The intramedullary device is useful in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue6,Article339.pdf
Files
(428.0 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:470b88222f6b84b8d6a07cacbd7b6a9d
|
428.0 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-03-26
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue6,Article339.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Munoz FM, et al. Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19: 229 – 233. 2. Lunsjo K, Ceder L, Stigsson L, et al. Two-way compression along the shaft and the neck of the femur with the Medoff sliding plate: oneyear follow-up of 108 intertrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78: 387 – 390. 3. Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, Van derWerken C. The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 1999; 30: 327 – 332. 4. Davis TR, Sher JL, Horsman A, et al. Intertrochanteric femoral fractures: mechanical failure after internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1990; 72-B: 26-31. 5. Jensen JS. A photoelastic study of the hip nailplate in unstable trochanteric fractures: a biomechanical study of unstable trochanteric fractures II. Acta Orthop Scand. 1978; 49:60-4. 6. Kyle RF, Gustilo RNB, Premer RF. Analysis of six hundred and twenty-two intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1979; 61-A: 216-21. 7. Simpson AH, Varty K, Dodd CA. Sliding hip screws: modes of failure. Injury. 1989; 20:227- 31. 8. Haynes RC, Poll RG, Miles AW, et al. Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut-out with the gamma locking nail and AO dynamic hip screw. Injury. 1997; 28: 337 – 341. 9. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, et al. Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73: 330 – 334. 10. Al-yassari G, Langstaff RJ, Jones JW, Al Lami M. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. Injury. 2002; 33:395-9. 11. Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, et al. Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury. 1995; 26: 615 – 618. 12. Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH. Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures. Management and current controversies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 398 – 410. 13. Lustenberger A, Bekic J, Ganz R. Rotational instability of trochanteric femoral fractures secured with the dynamic hip screw: a radiologic analysis. Unfallchirurg. 1995; 98:514-7. 14. Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, et al. The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of the Long Bones. Berlin: Springer, 1990. 15. Hoffman R, Haas NP. Femur proximal in AO Principles of Fracture Management (Ruedi TP, Murphy WM, eds). Stuttgart: Thieme, 2000; pp 441 – 454. 16. Salvati EA, Wilson PD Jr. Long-term results of femoral-head replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1973; 55: 516 – 524.17. Pajarinen J, Lindahl J, Michelsson O, et al. Pertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail. A randomised study comparing post-operative rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87: 76 –81. 18. Curtis MJ, Jinnah RH, Wilson V, et al. Proximal femoral fractures: a biomechanical study to compare intramedullary and extramedullary fixation. Injury. 1994: 25: 99 – 104. 19. Kim WY, Han CH, Park JI, et al. Failure of intertrochanteric fracture fixation with a dynamic hip screw in relation to pre-operative fracture stability and osteoporosis. Int Orthop. 2001: 25: 360 – 362. 20. Pajarinen J, Lindah J, Michelsson O, et al. Pertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail. A randomised study comparing post-operative rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87: 76 – 81. 21. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, et al. Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86: 86 – 94. 22. Brown TD, Ferguson AB. Mechanical property distributions in the cancellous bone of the human proximal femur. Acta Orthop Scand. 1980; 51: 429 – 437. 23. Herrera A, Domingo LJ, Calvo A, et al. A comparative study of trochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail or the proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop. 2002; 26: 365 – 369. 24. Sommers MB, Roth C, Hall H, et al. A laboratory model to evaluate cut out resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18: 361 – 368. 25. W. M. Gadegone, Y. S. Salphale. Proximal femoral nail – an analysis of 100 cases of proximal femoral fractures with an average follow up of 1 year. International Orthopaedics, June 2007, Volume 31(3): 403-408 26. Huber SM, Heining SM, Euler E. Pertrochanteric fracture fixation: photoelastic stress measurement comparing dynamic hip screw, y-nail and proximal femur nail. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1997; 79-B (Suppl II):166.