Comparison of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture fixation using a proximal femoral nail with a helical blade and lag screw type proximal femoral nail

W. Na, C. Lim, Sang Hong Lee
{"title":"Comparison of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture fixation using a proximal femoral nail with a helical blade and lag screw type proximal femoral nail","authors":"W. Na, C. Lim, Sang Hong Lee","doi":"10.30579/MBSE.2018.1.2.45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Corresponding author Sang Hong Lee Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, 365 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61453, Korea Tel: +82-62-220-3147 Fax: +82-62-226-3379 E-mail: shalee@chosun.ac.kr ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2258-1147 The aim of the study was to compare clinical and radiological results between the helical blade lag screw (proximal femoral nail antirotation II [PFNA II]) and the traditional lag screw (Zimmer Natural Nail [ZNN]) in the operative treatment of osteoporotic femur intertrochanteric fractures. We selected 182 patients who could be observed for at least 1 year from among 352 patients who received surgical treatment for osteoporotic isolated femur intertrochanteric fractures between January 2013 and December 2016. The PFNA II was applied in 110 cases, and the ZNN in 72 cases. We evaluated operation time, bleeding amount, quality of reduction, tip apex distance, bone union time, sliding distance, and lag screw position. The mean operation times and bleeding volumes were respectively 38 minutes and 224 mL for PFNA II, and 42 minutes and 234 mL for ZNN. The quality of reduction was good, acceptable, and poor in 71%, 25%, and 4% for PFNA II, and 68%, 31%, and 1% for ZNN, respectively. The mean tip apex distances, bone union times, and sliding distances were respectively 21.1 and 20.7 mm, 12.4 and 12.9 weeks, and 4.2 and 3.9 mm. The lag screw position was acceptable and poor in 95% and 5% for PFNA II, and 97% and 3% for ZNN, respectively. The design of the lag screw did not influence the surgical outcome in the osteoporotic isolated femur intertrochanteric fractures. Therefore, choice of the proximal femoral nail can safely be made according to surgeon preference.","PeriodicalId":259565,"journal":{"name":"Medical Biological Science and Engineering","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Biological Science and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30579/MBSE.2018.1.2.45","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Corresponding author Sang Hong Lee Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, 365 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61453, Korea Tel: +82-62-220-3147 Fax: +82-62-226-3379 E-mail: shalee@chosun.ac.kr ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2258-1147 The aim of the study was to compare clinical and radiological results between the helical blade lag screw (proximal femoral nail antirotation II [PFNA II]) and the traditional lag screw (Zimmer Natural Nail [ZNN]) in the operative treatment of osteoporotic femur intertrochanteric fractures. We selected 182 patients who could be observed for at least 1 year from among 352 patients who received surgical treatment for osteoporotic isolated femur intertrochanteric fractures between January 2013 and December 2016. The PFNA II was applied in 110 cases, and the ZNN in 72 cases. We evaluated operation time, bleeding amount, quality of reduction, tip apex distance, bone union time, sliding distance, and lag screw position. The mean operation times and bleeding volumes were respectively 38 minutes and 224 mL for PFNA II, and 42 minutes and 234 mL for ZNN. The quality of reduction was good, acceptable, and poor in 71%, 25%, and 4% for PFNA II, and 68%, 31%, and 1% for ZNN, respectively. The mean tip apex distances, bone union times, and sliding distances were respectively 21.1 and 20.7 mm, 12.4 and 12.9 weeks, and 4.2 and 3.9 mm. The lag screw position was acceptable and poor in 95% and 5% for PFNA II, and 97% and 3% for ZNN, respectively. The design of the lag screw did not influence the surgical outcome in the osteoporotic isolated femur intertrochanteric fractures. Therefore, choice of the proximal femoral nail can safely be made according to surgeon preference.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
螺旋刀片股近端钉与拉力螺钉型股近端钉固定骨质疏松性粗隆间骨折的比较
通讯作者李相红韩国光州东区皮尔门大街365号朝鲜大学医院骨科电话:+82-62-220-3147传真:+82-62-226-3379 E-mail: shalee@chosun.ac.kr ORCID:https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2258-1147本研究的目的是比较螺旋叶片拉力螺钉(股骨近端反旋II型钉[PFNA II])与传统拉力螺钉(Zimmer Natural nail [ZNN])在手术治疗骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折中的临床和影像学结果。我们从2013年1月至2016年12月接受骨质疏松性孤立性股骨粗隆间骨折手术治疗的352例患者中选择182例患者至少观察1年。应用PFNA II 110例,ZNN 72例。我们评估手术时间、出血量、复位质量、尖端距离、骨愈合时间、滑动距离和拉力螺钉位置。PFNAⅱ组平均手术时间38分钟,出血量224 mL; ZNN组平均手术时间42分钟,出血量234 mL。PFNA II和ZNN的复位质量分别为71%、25%和4%、68%、31%和1%,分别为良好、可接受和差。平均尖端距离、骨愈合时间和滑动距离分别为21.1和20.7 mm, 12.4和12.9周,4.2和3.9 mm。PFNA II的可接受螺钉位置为95%,ZNN的可接受螺钉位置为97%,ZNN为3%。拉力螺钉的设计对骨质疏松性孤立性股骨粗隆间骨折的手术结果没有影响。因此,可以根据外科医生的喜好选择股骨近端钉。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pinball-like free-floating right heart thrombus presenting as unexplained hypoxemia Management of sodium thiosulfate on subcutaneous and vascular calcification of right hand in end-stage renal disease: a case report Therapeutic experiences for herpes zoster and risk factors for zoster-associated pain: a retrospective single-center observational study Polymyositis, presenting with acute respiratory failure, misdiagnosed as Guillain-Barre syndrome Preparation and evaluation of histone H1.4 C-terminal peptide for cellular delivery of oligonucleotides
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1