Comparison of radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures treated using PFN and PFNA-2 in patients with osteoporosis.
Aged
Bone Nails
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary
/ adverse effects
Hip Fractures
/ diagnosis
Hip Joint
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
India
/ epidemiology
Internal Fixators
/ adverse effects
Male
Osteoporotic Fractures
/ surgery
Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Radiography
/ methods
Cleveland index
Intramedullary nailing
Neck shaft angle
Singh’s index
Tip apex distance
Journal
European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie
ISSN: 1432-1068
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9518037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
19
10
2018
accepted:
12
02
2019
pubmed:
20
2
2019
medline:
27
12
2019
entrez:
20
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Presently, unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures are treated commonly with intramedullary nailing devices. Various designs of intramedullary nail are introduced. The conventional Proximal Femoral Nail has given diverse outcome. Complications have also been noted with this implant. Newer designs like Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-2 have been introduced for Asian population. The aim of our study was to compare the radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture treated with conventional Proximal Femoral Nail and Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-2 in osteoporotic patients. Patients presenting with unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture (AO classification) and Singh's index ≤ 3 were included. Patients were assigned to the groups based on the implant used for treatment (PFN and PFNA2 group). Post-operative radiographs were used to assess the quality of reduction, by calculating neck shaft angle. The quality of fixation was assessed, by calculating tip apex distance and Cleveland index. The duration of surgery, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic images taken and length of hospital stay were noted. Patients were followed up for 6 months, and complications were noted. The functional outcome was compared using modified Harris hip score. The data analysis was done using Student's unpaired t test/Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Seventy-eight patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures and Singh's index < 3 were included. Thirty-seven were treated with PFNA2 and 41 with PFN. The average age in PFNA2 group was 69.51, and PFN group was 70.804. Nine patients in PFNA2 group and 10 patients in PFN group had tip apex distance more than 25 mm. Twelve patients in PFNA2 group and 14 Patients in PFN group had sub-optimal implant position as per Cleveland index. The difference in neck shaft angle between uninjured and operated side was more than 10° in four patients of PFNA2 group and seven patients of PFN group. The average Harris hip score was 74.55 for PFNA2 group and 69.88 for PFN group. Four complications were seen in PFNA2 group and 5 in PFN group. The functional outcome (p = 0.102) achieved with both the implants was similar. Good functional outcome can be achieved, when the radiological parameters are restored, i.e. TAD < 25 mm, Cleveland index in centre-centre position and neck shaft angle difference < 5°. The overall complications, in the set-up of osteoporosis, seen with both the implants were similar (p = 0.44). PFNA2 group showed better results in terms of perioperative morbidity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30778679
doi: 10.1007/s00590-019-02401-x
pii: 10.1007/s00590-019-02401-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1035-1042Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959 Dec;41-A:1399-408
pubmed: 13849408
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 Nov 13;9:112
pubmed: 25391985
J Orthop. 2018 Jan 03;15(1):40-46
pubmed: 29326497
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2015 Aug 4;95(29):2346-50
pubmed: 26711067
Med Arch. 2014 Jun;68(3):173-7
pubmed: 25568527
Med Sci Monit. 2014 Sep 12;20:1628-33
pubmed: 25213190
Injury. 2018 Aug;49(8):1436-1444
pubmed: 29724590
Acta Orthop Scand. 2001 Feb;72(1):36-41
pubmed: 11327411
Unfallchirurg. 2005 Nov;108(11):938, 940, 941-6 passim
pubmed: 15977008
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Sep;78(5):831-4
pubmed: 8836082
Injury. 2006 Oct;37(10):984-9
pubmed: 16934256
Open Orthop J. 2015 Nov 19;9:456-9
pubmed: 27468839
Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(4):276-9
pubmed: 19093903
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Apr;101(2):143-6
pubmed: 25701162
J Trauma. 2011 Jul;71(1):169-74
pubmed: 21818023
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jul;11(7):RC05-RC09
pubmed: 28892987
J Int Med Res. 2012;40(3):839-51
pubmed: 22906256
Indian J Orthop. 2016 Nov-Dec;50(6):641-646
pubmed: 27904220
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jul;77(7):1058-64
pubmed: 7608228
J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Oct 17;8:35
pubmed: 24135331