Dynamic hip screws versus proximal femoral nails for intertrochanteric fractures

被引:48
作者
Avakian, Zorik [1 ]
Shiraev, Timothy [2 ]
Lam, Lawrence [2 ]
Hope, Nigel [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Sydney Adventist Hosp, Wahroonga, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ Notre Dame, Sch Med, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
DHS; fracture; hip; intertrochanteric; PFN; INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL; IMPLANT; PLATE;
D O I
10.1111/j.1445-2197.2011.05929.x
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
100210 [外科学];
摘要
Background: It is essential to determine the optimal treatment of intertrochanteric fractures due to their high incidence and related public health burden. Debate remains as to whether dynamic hip screws (DHS) or proximal femoral nails (PFNs) are best practice, and this pilot study seeks to collect information relevant to this query. Methods: We undertook a retrospective audit of 144 patients who received a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail in order to compare age, sex, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, time of first mobilization, and rate anaemia, sepsis, avascular necrosis, prosthesis failure, revision, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, common peroneal nerve palsy and death between implantation of a DHS and a PFN. Results: No differences were found between groups in age, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, time of first mobilization and rate of complications. Statistically significant differences were found in sex distributions, operation time and length of stay. However, analysis of median operation time and length of stay when adjusted for sex revealed no significant differences. Conclusion: This study demonstrated no statistically significant differences in periand post-operative measures between patients undergoing intertrochanteric fracture fixation via PFN or DHS. This is the only data from Australian hospitals, and further national research is needed.
引用
收藏
页码:56 / 59
页数:4
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]
Canale TS., 2007, CAMPBELLS OPERATIVE, V11th
[2]
Trends in hip fracture epidemiology in Australia: Possible impact of bisphosphonates and hormone replacement therapy [J].
Fisher, A. A. ;
O'Brien, E. D. ;
Davis, M. W. .
BONE, 2009, 45 (02) :246-253
[3]
World-wide projections for hip fracture [J].
Gullberg, B ;
Johnell, O ;
Kanis, JA .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1997, 7 (05) :407-413
[4]
Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures [J].
Jones, HW ;
Johnston, P ;
Parker, M .
INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2006, 30 (02) :69-78
[5]
Does the perioperative morbidity following internal fixation of proximal femur fracture depend on the type of implant? -: Analysis of dynamic hip screw and proximal femur nail [J].
Käfer, M ;
Palm, M ;
Zwank, L ;
Cakir, B ;
Puhl, W ;
Käfer, W .
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND IHRE GRENZGEBIETE, 2005, 143 (01) :64-71
[6]
lA comparative study of unstable per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with dynamic hip screw (DHS) and trochanteric butt-press plate vs. proximal femoral nail (PFN) [J].
Klinger, HM ;
Baums, MH ;
Eckert, M ;
Neugebauer, R .
ZENTRALBLATT FUR CHIRURGIE, 2005, 130 (04) :301-306
[7]
Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures - Management and current controversies [J].
Lorich, DG ;
Geller, DS ;
Nielson, JH .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2004, 86A (02) :398-410
[8]
Mak JC, 2009, MED J AUSTRALIA, V192, P37
[9]
Is the proximal femoral nail a suitable implant for treatment of all trochanteric fractures? [J].
Menezes, DFA ;
Gamulin, A ;
Noesberger, B .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2005, (439) :221-227
[10]
Ongkiehong BF., 2007, INJURY EXTRA, V38, P445