Intertrochanteric Fracture Management Proximal Femoral Nailing Vs Dynamic Hip Screw

Abstract

Intertrochanteric fracture is one of the most common fractures of the hip especially in the elderly with osteoporotic bones, usually due to low-energy trauma like simple falls. Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) is still considered the gold standard for treating intertrochanteric fractures by many. Not many studies compare the DHS with Proximal femoral nail (PFN), in type 1 and Type 2 intertrochanteric fractures (Boyd and Griffin classification). This study was done to compare the functional and radiological outcome of PFN with DHS in treatment of type 1 and Type 2 intertrochanteric fractures. Methods: From December 2015 to December 2017, a prospective comparative study was done where 30 alternative cases of type 1 and type 2 intertrochanteric fractures of hip were operated using PFN or DHS. Intraoperative complications were noted. Functional outcome was assessed using Harris Hip Score and radiological findings were compared at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Results: The average age of the patients was 59 years. In our series we found that patients with DHS had increased intraoperative blood loss (180ml), longer duration of surgery (115min), and required longer time for mobilization while patients who underwent PFN had lower intraoperative blood loss (70ml), shorter duration of surgery (85min), and allowed early mobilization. The average limb shortening in DHS group was 9.31 mm as compared with PFN group which was only 4.70 mm. The patients treated with PFN started early ambulation as they had better Harris Hip Score in the early post-op period. At the end of 12th month, there was not much difference in the functional outcome between the two groups. Conclusion: PFN is better than DHS in stable intertrochanteric fractures in terms of decreased blood loss, reduced duration of surgery, early weight bearing and mobilization, reduced hospital stay, decreased risk of infection and decreased complications.

Authors and Affiliations

Ashok Bangarshettar, yogesh kadam

Keywords

Related Articles

Clinical And Functional Outcome Of Intra Articular And Extra Articular Proximal Tibial Fractures Treated By Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPPO)

Background: Complex fractures of the proximal tibia includes intra- articular tibial plateau and extra articular proximal one fourth of tibia have increased with increase in the incidence of high velocity accidents. O...

Surgical Reconstruction Of Non Union Patella And Neglected Patellar Tendon Rupture With Semitendinosus Graft – A Prospective Study

Background: Non-union of patella and neglected patellar tendon rupture cause significant disability due to disruption in extensor mechanism of knee. Reconstruction attempted months or years later is prone to unsatisfac...

Efficacy Of Low Dose Aspirin In Reducing Deep Vein Thrombosis In Patients Of Lower Limb Fracture Waiting For Surgery

Background: Deep vein thrombosis is one of the most common complications in patients who have sustained skeletal injury. When given for antithrombotic prophylaxis in high risk medical or surgical patients, aspirin was sh...

Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Osteosynthesis [MIPPO] For Proximal And Distal Metaphyseal Fractures Of Tibia

Subcutaneous nature of tibia and its precarious blood supply make fractures of tibia more complicated. Minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis[MIPPO] for proximal and distal metaphyseal fractures of tibia”appear t...

A Clinical Study To Compare Percutaneous Pinsfixation Of Supracondylar Fractures In Children

Supracondylar fracture of humerus is one of the most common fractures in the first decade of life. Closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation is most widely accepted treatment method for displaced supracondylar fract...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP534226
  • DOI -
  • Views 317
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Ashok Bangarshettar, yogesh kadam (2018). Intertrochanteric Fracture Management Proximal Femoral Nailing Vs Dynamic Hip Screw. International Journal of Orthopaedics Traumatology & Surgical Sciences, 4(2), 271-277. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-534226