Clinical and Functional Outcome of Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fracture: Compare Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation in Samutsakhon
Keywords:
Intertrochanteric fracture, Dynamic Hip Screw, Proximal Femoral Nail AntirotationAbstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical and functional outcomes of dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in Samutsakhon hospital’s patients, during January 2016 – December 2019.
Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed 85 consecutive patients with intertrochanteric femoral fractures who were treated with DHS (n=40) or PFNA (n=45). This study evaluated operation time, intraoperative blood loss, pain after surgery, fracture union, sliding of hip screw, hospital stay and presence of complications.
Results: The mean operation time (p = 0.001), blood losses(p=0.039), pain score, time to union(p=0.03) were significantly lower for the PFNA group, but hospital stay (p=0.21) and sliding of hip screw (p=0.815) decreased to a similar for both groups.
Conclusion: Treatment of intertrochanteric fracture, PFNA is better than DHS in term of less blood loss, shorter operation time, less severe pain after surgery and shorter union time when compare to DHS.
References
2. Vaseenon T, Luevitoonvechkij S, Wongtriratanachai P, et al. Long-term mortality after osteoporotic hip fracture in Chiang Mai, Thailand. J Clin Densitom. 2010; 13(1): 63-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2009.10.003.
3. Guzon-Illescas O, Perez Fernandez E, Crespi Villarias N, et al. Mortality after osteoporotic hip fracture: incidence, trends, and associated factors. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019; 14(1): 203. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1226-6.
4. กริช ธีรลีกุล. การศึกษาเปรียบเทียบผลการรักษาโดยการผ่าตัดใส่เหล็กยึดกระดูกต้นขาบริเวณสะโพกหักผ่าแน่วปุ่มกระดูกชนิดมั่นคงระหว่างแผ่นโลหะยึดตรึงกระดูกแบบเกลียวล็อคกับไดนามิกฮิพสกรูในโรงพยาบาลศรีสะเกษ. วารสารการแพทย์โรงพยาบาลอุดรธานี. 2560; 25(2): 11.
5. Forward DP, Doro CJ, O'Toole RV, et al. A biomechanical comparison of a locking plate, a nail, and a 95 degrees angled blade plate for fixation of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 26(6): 334-40. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182254ea3.
6. Ozkan K, Turkmen I, Sahin A, et al. A biomechanical comparison of proximal femoral nails and locking proximal anatomic femoral plates in femoral fracture fixation: A study on synthetic bones. Indian J Orthop. 2015; 49(3): 347-51. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.156220.
7. Arirachakaran A, Amphansap T, Thanindratarn P, et al. Comparative outcome of PFNA, Gamma nails, PCCP, Medoff plate, LISS and dynamic hip screws for fixation in elderly trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017; 27(7): 937-52.
8. Cho HM, Lee K. Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Treatment for Type A1 Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture in Elderly Patients: Comparison of Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation. Hip Pelvis. 2016; 28(4): 232-42. doi: 10.5371/hp.2016.28.4.232.
9. Yu W, Zhang X, Zhu X, et al. Proximal femoral nails anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screws for treatment of stable intertrochanteric femur fractures: an outcome analyses with a minimum 4 years of follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17: 222. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1079-7
10. Duymus TM, Aydogmus S, Ulusoy I, et al. Comparison of Intra- and Extramedullary Implants in Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019; 10(2): 290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.04.003
11. Li H, Wang Q, Dai GG, et al. PFNA vs. DHS helical blade for elderly patients with osteoporotic femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018; 22(1 Suppl): 1-7. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_201807_15346.
12. Wagman Y, Segal O, Dudkiewicz I, et al. Markers of muscle damage for comparing soft tissue injury following proximal femur nail and dynamic hip screw operations for intertrochanteric hip fractures. Injury. 2016; 47(12): 2764-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.018.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
ลิขสิทธิ์บทความเป็นของผู้เขียนบทความ แต่หากผลงานของท่านได้รับการพิจารณาตีพิมพ์ลงวารสารแพทย์เขต 4-5 จะคงไว้ซึ่งสิทธิ์ในการตีพิมพ์ครั้งแรกด้วยเหตุที่บทความจะปรากฎในวารสารที่เข้าถึงได้ จึงอนุญาตให้นำบทความในวารสารไปใช้ประโยชน์ได้ในเชิงวิชาการโดยจำเป็นต้องมีการอ้างอิงถึงชื่อวารสารอย่างถูกต้อง แต่ไม่อนุญาตให้นำไปใช้ในเชิงพาณิชย์
