Proximal femoral nailing for unstable trochanteric fractures: lateral decubitus position or traction table? A case-control study of 96 patients.

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS SICOT-J Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1051/sicotj/2024041
Mohamed I Abulsoud, Mohamed A A Ibrahim, Ahmed Saied Mohammed, Mohammed Elmarghany, Usama Gaber, Elsherbiny Ali Elsherbiny, Samir A Nematallah, Mohamed Amer Mohamed, Mohamed F Elhalawany, Yahia A Hasanien, Mostafa Abonnour
{"title":"Proximal femoral nailing for unstable trochanteric fractures: lateral decubitus position or traction table? A case-control study of 96 patients.","authors":"Mohamed I Abulsoud, Mohamed A A Ibrahim, Ahmed Saied Mohammed, Mohammed Elmarghany, Usama Gaber, Elsherbiny Ali Elsherbiny, Samir A Nematallah, Mohamed Amer Mohamed, Mohamed F Elhalawany, Yahia A Hasanien, Mostafa Abonnour","doi":"10.1051/sicotj/2024041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures with short proximal femoral nailing in elderly patients in the lateral decubitus position versus the supine position on traction tables.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June 2020 to January 2022, a prospective case-control study was performed on 96 patients who presented with unstable trochanteric fractures treated by internal fixation via short proximal femoral nail (PFN). Patients were divided into two groups: Group A, which included patients who underwent surgery in the lateral position; and Group B, which included those in the supine position. Both groups were subjected to follow-up for 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean setup time, surgery time, and blood loss were significantly greater in Group B than in Group A, while the hospital stay and fluoroscopy duration were similar in both groups. Regarding reduction quality and fixation (TAD (tip-apex distance), CDA (collodiaphyseal angle), and Reduction CRQC (change reduction quality criterion)), there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups; moreover, there were no intraoperative or postoperative complications in either group or the Harris hip score (67.65 ± 17.06 in Group A vs. 67.15 ± 17.05 in Group B).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The lateral decubitus and supine positions on a traction table are suitable for proximal femoral nailing with comparable outcomes, and surgeons can use either position according to their preferences and resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":46378,"journal":{"name":"SICOT-J","volume":"10 ","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545368/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SICOT-J","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2024041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures with short proximal femoral nailing in elderly patients in the lateral decubitus position versus the supine position on traction tables.

Methods: From June 2020 to January 2022, a prospective case-control study was performed on 96 patients who presented with unstable trochanteric fractures treated by internal fixation via short proximal femoral nail (PFN). Patients were divided into two groups: Group A, which included patients who underwent surgery in the lateral position; and Group B, which included those in the supine position. Both groups were subjected to follow-up for 12 months.

Results: The mean setup time, surgery time, and blood loss were significantly greater in Group B than in Group A, while the hospital stay and fluoroscopy duration were similar in both groups. Regarding reduction quality and fixation (TAD (tip-apex distance), CDA (collodiaphyseal angle), and Reduction CRQC (change reduction quality criterion)), there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups; moreover, there were no intraoperative or postoperative complications in either group or the Harris hip score (67.65 ± 17.06 in Group A vs. 67.15 ± 17.05 in Group B).

Conclusion: The lateral decubitus and supine positions on a traction table are suitable for proximal femoral nailing with comparable outcomes, and surgeons can use either position according to their preferences and resources.

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
股骨近端钉治疗不稳定转子间骨折:侧卧位还是牵引床?96例患者的病例对照研究。
目的:本研究旨在比较老年患者侧卧位与仰卧位在牵引床上使用股骨近端短钉治疗不稳定股骨转子间骨折的效果:2020年6月至2022年1月期间,对96名不稳定股骨转子间骨折患者进行了前瞻性病例对照研究,这些患者均接受了股骨近端短钉(PFN)内固定治疗。患者被分为两组:A 组包括在侧卧位接受手术的患者;B 组包括在仰卧位接受手术的患者。两组患者均接受了 12 个月的随访:结果:B组的平均设置时间、手术时间和失血量明显多于A组,而两组的住院时间和透视时间相似。此外,两组均无术中、术后并发症,Harris髋关节评分(A组为67.65±17.06,B组为67.15±17.05)也无统计学差异:结论:牵引床上的侧卧位和仰卧位都适合股骨近端置钉术,且效果相当,外科医生可根据自己的喜好和资源情况选择其中一种体位。
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
SICOT-J
SICOT-J ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Adapting hip arthroplasty practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Assessing the impact of outpatient care sudden increase on early complications and clinical outcomes. Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility cups following failed internal fixation of proximal femoral fractures at a mean follow-up of 6 years. Prior medial meniscus arthroscopy is not associated with worst functional outcomes in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective single-center study with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Short-term functional outcomes of robotic-assisted TKA are better with functional alignment compared to adjusted mechanical alignment. Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations: What to learn from past reports?
×
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:481959085
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