A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FIXATION OF PERTROCHANTERIC FRACTURES WITH DYNAMIC HIP SCREW AND PROXIMAL FEMORAL NAIL

Nadir Z. Shah, A. Singh, Arohi Sharma
{"title":"A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FIXATION OF PERTROCHANTERIC FRACTURES WITH DYNAMIC HIP SCREW AND PROXIMAL FEMORAL NAIL","authors":"Nadir Z. Shah, A. Singh, Arohi Sharma","doi":"10.22271/ortho.2017.v3.i3l.124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Trochanteric femoral fractures are among the most common injuries necessitating hospital admission. Regardless the type of fracture, trochanteric fractures can lead to substantial morbidity and mortality , especially in elderly patients. [1,2] Surgery is the mainstay of the treatment for both displaced and non displaced trochanteric fractures, to allow early mobilization of the patient, depending on the stability of the reduction and fixation achieved. [4] Dynamic Hip Screw [DHS] as extramedullary and Proximal Femoral Nail [PFN] as intramedullary  systems are established and standard in treatment of trochanteric femoral fractures. [5,6] Aim: To compare the results of Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nail in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Materials & Methods: In our study we compared DHS with PFN in a group of 60 patients admitted in a tertiary care hospital between August 2013 – December 2016 . Patients  with intertrochanteric fractures  without having concomitant shaft femur or neck femur fractures  were included. The preoperative morbidity was evaluated using Parker’s mobility scale. Salvati and Wilson’s scoring helped in measuring overall functional outcome at 16 & 24 weeks between the two study groups. Results: The preoperative Parker’s mobility scale was comparable between two study groups. Salvati and Wilson’s score at 16 & 24 weeks was significantly better with PFN group. The functional outcome based on SWS score was Fair in 39% of patients operated with DHS at 16 weeks while for PFN it was Fair to Good in 79 % of patients . At 24 weeks it was Fair to Good in 84% patients operated with DHS while in case of PFN the score was Fair to Good in 59% of the patients & Excellent in 38% of the patients. Conclusion: Our conclusion from this study supported the use of PFN for both stable and unstable peritrochanteric fractures over DHS due to its lesser operation time, lesser blood loss, early weight bearing, limited open reduction & better functional outcome.","PeriodicalId":91882,"journal":{"name":"International education and research journal","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International education and research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22271/ortho.2017.v3.i3l.124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trochanteric femoral fractures are among the most common injuries necessitating hospital admission. Regardless the type of fracture, trochanteric fractures can lead to substantial morbidity and mortality , especially in elderly patients. [1,2] Surgery is the mainstay of the treatment for both displaced and non displaced trochanteric fractures, to allow early mobilization of the patient, depending on the stability of the reduction and fixation achieved. [4] Dynamic Hip Screw [DHS] as extramedullary and Proximal Femoral Nail [PFN] as intramedullary  systems are established and standard in treatment of trochanteric femoral fractures. [5,6] Aim: To compare the results of Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nail in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Materials & Methods: In our study we compared DHS with PFN in a group of 60 patients admitted in a tertiary care hospital between August 2013 – December 2016 . Patients  with intertrochanteric fractures  without having concomitant shaft femur or neck femur fractures  were included. The preoperative morbidity was evaluated using Parker’s mobility scale. Salvati and Wilson’s scoring helped in measuring overall functional outcome at 16 & 24 weeks between the two study groups. Results: The preoperative Parker’s mobility scale was comparable between two study groups. Salvati and Wilson’s score at 16 & 24 weeks was significantly better with PFN group. The functional outcome based on SWS score was Fair in 39% of patients operated with DHS at 16 weeks while for PFN it was Fair to Good in 79 % of patients . At 24 weeks it was Fair to Good in 84% patients operated with DHS while in case of PFN the score was Fair to Good in 59% of the patients & Excellent in 38% of the patients. Conclusion: Our conclusion from this study supported the use of PFN for both stable and unstable peritrochanteric fractures over DHS due to its lesser operation time, lesser blood loss, early weight bearing, limited open reduction & better functional outcome.
动力髋螺钉与股近端钉固定股骨粗隆骨折的比较研究
股骨转子骨折是最常见的需要住院治疗的损伤之一。无论何种类型的骨折,转子骨折可导致大量的发病率和死亡率,特别是在老年患者中。[1,2]手术是治疗移位和非移位转子骨折的主要方法,根据复位和固定的稳定性,允许患者早期活动。[4]动力髋螺钉(DHS)作为髓外系统和股骨近端钉(PFN)作为髓内系统被建立和规范用于治疗股骨粗隆骨折。[5,6]目的:比较动力髋螺钉与股近端钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的效果。材料与方法:在我们的研究中,我们比较了DHS和PFN在2013年8月至2016年12月期间在一家三级医院住院的60名患者。未合并股骨骨干或股骨颈骨折的股骨粗隆间骨折患者纳入研究。术前发病率采用帕克氏活动度量表评估。Salvati和Wilson的评分有助于测量两个研究组在16周和24周时的整体功能结果。结果:术前帕克氏活动量表在两个研究组之间具有可比性。PFN组在16周和24周时的Salvati和Wilson评分明显改善。基于SWS评分的功能结果在16周DHS手术的患者中有39%为一般,而在PFN手术的患者中有79%为一般至良好。在24周时,84%的DHS患者的评分从一般到良好,而在PFN的情况下,59%的患者的评分从一般到良好,38%的患者评分为优秀。结论:本研究的结论支持PFN用于DHS的稳定和不稳定转子周围骨折,因为PFN手术时间短,出血量少,早期负重,开放复位有限,功能预后好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信