GS Hip Nail versus Affixus Hip Fracture Nail for the Intramedullary Nailing of Intertrochanteric Fractures.
Affixus hip fracture nail
GS hip nail
femoral nail
intertrochanteric fracture
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Oct 2023
24 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
02
10
2023
revised:
12
10
2023
accepted:
19
10
2023
medline:
14
11
2023
pubmed:
14
11
2023
entrez:
14
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Intertrochanteric fractures are a global health concern, especially in aging populations like the Republic of Korea. Surgical treatments like intramedullary nailing are preferred for their benefit. Various hip nails are used worldwide, each with unique features and challenges. This study aims to compare the GS hip nail with the Affixus hip fracture nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. This retrospective study, conducted at a single center, included 179 patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for intertrochanteric fractures using the GS hip nail or the Affixus hip fracture nail. Excluding specific cases, 43 patients in the GS group and 46 in the Affixus group met the minimum 6-month follow-up criteria. The GS group exhibited a significantly shorter mean operation time (43.26 min) compared to the Affixus group (51.11 min). Radiographically, both groups showed no significant differences in their reduction quality, tip, and apex distance (TAD), or Cleveland index in the immediate postoperative window. However, the GS group achieved a greater valgus reduction based on the contralateral femoral neck shaft angle (NSA). At 6 months post-operation, there were no significant differences in TAD or advancement and sliding distances. Complication rates were similar between the two groups, with no implant breakages. Clinical outcomes, as measured via mHHS and EQ-5D-5L, showed no significant differences. Despite a slightly higher implant cost, the GS group had a lower total hospital cost than the Affixus group, but this was not statistically significant. This study highlights the efficiency of the GS hip nail in reducing the operation time compared to the Affixus hip fracture nail with comparable radiologic and clinical outcomes. Further research with long-term follow-up and larger patient studies are needed to fully assess its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes in hip fracture treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Intertrochanteric fractures are a global health concern, especially in aging populations like the Republic of Korea. Surgical treatments like intramedullary nailing are preferred for their benefit. Various hip nails are used worldwide, each with unique features and challenges. This study aims to compare the GS hip nail with the Affixus hip fracture nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study, conducted at a single center, included 179 patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for intertrochanteric fractures using the GS hip nail or the Affixus hip fracture nail. Excluding specific cases, 43 patients in the GS group and 46 in the Affixus group met the minimum 6-month follow-up criteria.
RESULT
RESULTS
The GS group exhibited a significantly shorter mean operation time (43.26 min) compared to the Affixus group (51.11 min). Radiographically, both groups showed no significant differences in their reduction quality, tip, and apex distance (TAD), or Cleveland index in the immediate postoperative window. However, the GS group achieved a greater valgus reduction based on the contralateral femoral neck shaft angle (NSA). At 6 months post-operation, there were no significant differences in TAD or advancement and sliding distances. Complication rates were similar between the two groups, with no implant breakages. Clinical outcomes, as measured via mHHS and EQ-5D-5L, showed no significant differences. Despite a slightly higher implant cost, the GS group had a lower total hospital cost than the Affixus group, but this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study highlights the efficiency of the GS hip nail in reducing the operation time compared to the Affixus hip fracture nail with comparable radiologic and clinical outcomes. Further research with long-term follow-up and larger patient studies are needed to fully assess its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes in hip fracture treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37959186
pii: jcm12216720
doi: 10.3390/jcm12216720
pmc: PMC10650030
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Injury. 2008 Aug;39(8):932-9
pubmed: 18582887
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):811-8
pubmed: 25840887
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959 Dec;41-A:1399-408
pubmed: 13849408
Osteoporos Int. 2010 Dec;21(Suppl 4):S529-34
pubmed: 21057992
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005 Sep;125(7):462-8
pubmed: 16059696
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Jul;91(7):922-7
pubmed: 19567858
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008 Dec;128(12):1443-6
pubmed: 18784928
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004 Dec;124(10):692-8
pubmed: 15517321
Adv Orthop. 2014;2014:509592
pubmed: 25580303
J Orthop. 2018 Jan 03;15(1):40-46
pubmed: 29326497
Bone Joint J. 2021 Feb;103-B(2):256-263
pubmed: 33390029
Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(3):464-70
pubmed: 16283063
Injury. 2004 Feb;35(2):142-51
pubmed: 14736471
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Feb;(323):42-8
pubmed: 8625605
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 May;107(3):102804
pubmed: 33444822
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Nov;31(11):577-582
pubmed: 28827501
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 12;(9):CD004961
pubmed: 25212485
Injury. 2019 Jul;50(7):1272-1276
pubmed: 31147181
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Feb;(419):173-8
pubmed: 15021150
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Aug;87(8):1123-6
pubmed: 16049251
Bone. 1996 Jan;18(1 Suppl):57S-63S
pubmed: 8717549
Int Orthop. 2001;25(5):298-301
pubmed: 11794263
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 Apr;19(4):229-33
pubmed: 15795570
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
Int Orthop. 2009 Oct;33(5):1441-4
pubmed: 19367404
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 Feb;106(1S):S79-S87
pubmed: 31680016
Bone. 2006 Sep;39(3):623-7
pubmed: 16603427
Orthopade. 2000 Apr;29(4):294-301
pubmed: 10851690
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019 Jan-Feb;10(1):128-130
pubmed: 30705547
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):789-93
pubmed: 8376441
Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2019 Dec;17(6):363-374
pubmed: 31755030
Injury. 2015 Nov;46 Suppl 5:S12-7
pubmed: 26384659
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Apr;90(4):700-7
pubmed: 18381305
Lancet. 2017 Apr 1;389(10076):1323-1335
pubmed: 28236464
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 May;136(5):623-30
pubmed: 26852380
Injury. 2010 Mar;41(3):279-84
pubmed: 20176167
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jan;86(1):86-94
pubmed: 14765872
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3647-55
pubmed: 26208608
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2007 Jun;33(3):262-7
pubmed: 26814490
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Apr;32(4):174-177
pubmed: 29377850
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Apr;90(4):691-9
pubmed: 18381304
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978 May;60-B(2):150-62
pubmed: 350882
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1845-52
pubmed: 26961008
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jul;77(7):1058-64
pubmed: 7608228