{"title":"股骨近端钉(PFN)与动态髁螺钉(DCS)治疗不稳定转子骨折的比较研究。","authors":"Md Faraz Jamil, Julfiqar Mohd, Mazhar Abbas, Yasir Salam Siddiqui, Mohammad Jesan Khan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trochanteric hip fractures have become very common with 35-40% of these fractures being unstable. Trochanteric fractures, especially unstable ones are associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity and thus remain an inordinate challenge for surgeon to treat these fractures with proper choice of implant. Aim of the study was to compare the proximal femoral nail and dynamic condylar screw in the management of unstable trochanteric fractures. Our study was a prospective comparative study which included 26 patients with fresh (≤3 weeks old) unstable trochanteric fractures AO 31A2 and AO 31A3, with age ≥18 years of both sexes. Eleven patients in DCS and fifteen patients in PFN were included. Harris hip score was used to compare functional outcomes. Average age of patients in DCS group was 59.82±11.59 years and PFN was 54.2±16.22 years. AO 31A2 fracture pattern (63.64%) was more common than AO 31A3 in DCS group and AO 31A3 fracture pattern (60.00%) was more common than AO 31A2 in PFN group. Mean operative time for DCS was 96.36±15.51 minutes and for PFN it was 79.67±12.02 minutes with <i>P</i>-value of 0.003. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group were lost to follow up. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group died. Seven out of 11 (63.64%) patients in DCS group and 13 out of 15 (86.60%) patients in PFN group were available for final follow up. Union seen in 2 (28.57%) patients with DCS and 12 (92.31%) patients fixed with PFN with <i>P</i>-value of 0.007. Mean HHS of 62.29±24.26 in DCS and 86.92±11.65 in PFN with <i>P</i>-value of 0.037. Patients with combined excellent and good HHS in DCS group and PFN group were 2 (28.57%) and 11 (84.62%) respectively. Non-union was seen in 5 (71.43%) patients fixed with DCS and 1 (7.69%) patient fixed with PFN. Implant failure was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group in which barrel plate was broken in 2 (28.57%) patients and lag screw cut out through femoral head in 1 (14.29%) patient and 1 (7.69%) patient in PFN group due to varus collapse and complete backout of screw. Varus collapse was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group and 4 (30.76%) patients in PFN group. Proximal femoral nail is better implant as compared to dynamic condylar screw which was statistically significant in terms of lesser operative time, higher union rate and better functional outcome. So PFN is a better implant choice for unstable trochanteric fractures when compared with DCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":45488,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Burns and Trauma","volume":"12 3","pages":"83-92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9301162/pdf/ijbt0012-0083.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) versus Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Md Faraz Jamil, Julfiqar Mohd, Mazhar Abbas, Yasir Salam Siddiqui, Mohammad Jesan Khan\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Trochanteric hip fractures have become very common with 35-40% of these fractures being unstable. Trochanteric fractures, especially unstable ones are associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity and thus remain an inordinate challenge for surgeon to treat these fractures with proper choice of implant. Aim of the study was to compare the proximal femoral nail and dynamic condylar screw in the management of unstable trochanteric fractures. Our study was a prospective comparative study which included 26 patients with fresh (≤3 weeks old) unstable trochanteric fractures AO 31A2 and AO 31A3, with age ≥18 years of both sexes. Eleven patients in DCS and fifteen patients in PFN were included. Harris hip score was used to compare functional outcomes. Average age of patients in DCS group was 59.82±11.59 years and PFN was 54.2±16.22 years. AO 31A2 fracture pattern (63.64%) was more common than AO 31A3 in DCS group and AO 31A3 fracture pattern (60.00%) was more common than AO 31A2 in PFN group. Mean operative time for DCS was 96.36±15.51 minutes and for PFN it was 79.67±12.02 minutes with <i>P</i>-value of 0.003. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group were lost to follow up. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group died. Seven out of 11 (63.64%) patients in DCS group and 13 out of 15 (86.60%) patients in PFN group were available for final follow up. Union seen in 2 (28.57%) patients with DCS and 12 (92.31%) patients fixed with PFN with <i>P</i>-value of 0.007. Mean HHS of 62.29±24.26 in DCS and 86.92±11.65 in PFN with <i>P</i>-value of 0.037. Patients with combined excellent and good HHS in DCS group and PFN group were 2 (28.57%) and 11 (84.62%) respectively. Non-union was seen in 5 (71.43%) patients fixed with DCS and 1 (7.69%) patient fixed with PFN. Implant failure was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group in which barrel plate was broken in 2 (28.57%) patients and lag screw cut out through femoral head in 1 (14.29%) patient and 1 (7.69%) patient in PFN group due to varus collapse and complete backout of screw. Varus collapse was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group and 4 (30.76%) patients in PFN group. Proximal femoral nail is better implant as compared to dynamic condylar screw which was statistically significant in terms of lesser operative time, higher union rate and better functional outcome. So PFN is a better implant choice for unstable trochanteric fractures when compared with DCS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Burns and Trauma\",\"volume\":\"12 3\",\"pages\":\"83-92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9301162/pdf/ijbt0012-0083.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Burns and Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Burns and Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparative study of Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) versus Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.
Trochanteric hip fractures have become very common with 35-40% of these fractures being unstable. Trochanteric fractures, especially unstable ones are associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity and thus remain an inordinate challenge for surgeon to treat these fractures with proper choice of implant. Aim of the study was to compare the proximal femoral nail and dynamic condylar screw in the management of unstable trochanteric fractures. Our study was a prospective comparative study which included 26 patients with fresh (≤3 weeks old) unstable trochanteric fractures AO 31A2 and AO 31A3, with age ≥18 years of both sexes. Eleven patients in DCS and fifteen patients in PFN were included. Harris hip score was used to compare functional outcomes. Average age of patients in DCS group was 59.82±11.59 years and PFN was 54.2±16.22 years. AO 31A2 fracture pattern (63.64%) was more common than AO 31A3 in DCS group and AO 31A3 fracture pattern (60.00%) was more common than AO 31A2 in PFN group. Mean operative time for DCS was 96.36±15.51 minutes and for PFN it was 79.67±12.02 minutes with P-value of 0.003. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group were lost to follow up. Two patients in DCS group and 1 patient in PFN group died. Seven out of 11 (63.64%) patients in DCS group and 13 out of 15 (86.60%) patients in PFN group were available for final follow up. Union seen in 2 (28.57%) patients with DCS and 12 (92.31%) patients fixed with PFN with P-value of 0.007. Mean HHS of 62.29±24.26 in DCS and 86.92±11.65 in PFN with P-value of 0.037. Patients with combined excellent and good HHS in DCS group and PFN group were 2 (28.57%) and 11 (84.62%) respectively. Non-union was seen in 5 (71.43%) patients fixed with DCS and 1 (7.69%) patient fixed with PFN. Implant failure was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group in which barrel plate was broken in 2 (28.57%) patients and lag screw cut out through femoral head in 1 (14.29%) patient and 1 (7.69%) patient in PFN group due to varus collapse and complete backout of screw. Varus collapse was seen in 3 (42.86%) patients in DCS group and 4 (30.76%) patients in PFN group. Proximal femoral nail is better implant as compared to dynamic condylar screw which was statistically significant in terms of lesser operative time, higher union rate and better functional outcome. So PFN is a better implant choice for unstable trochanteric fractures when compared with DCS.