Why the study?
Dynamic hip screw fixation is standard for stable intertrochanteric femur fractures, but the minimally invasive surgical technique needed comparison with the conventional open technique.
Does minimally invasive fixation with Dynamic Hip Screw improve outcomes compared to conventional open fixation in patients with stable intertrochanteric fractures?
Does minimally invasive fixation with Dynamic Hip Screw improve outcomes compared to conventional open fixation in patients with stable intertrochanteric fractures?
Minimally invasive DHS fixation offers superior clinical and perioperative outcomes compared to the conventional open technique for stable intertrochanteric fractures.
Minimally invasive DHS may offer perioperative advantages in stable intertrochanteric fractures; leaves open superiority over conventional technique without randomized confirmation.
Background: Intertrochanteric fractures of femur are one of the most common fractures encountered in the elderly population. Dynamic hip screw (DHS) with a side plate is the standard modality of treatment especially in the case of stable fractures because it creates a controlled collapse at fracture site, leading to union. A comparative study between minimally invasive surgical technique with the conventional surgical technique for the fixation of intertrochanteric fractures with the DHS device was done. Methods: Thirty patients with stable intertrochanteric fractures (31A1.1, 31A1.2, and 31A1.3) were treated with the conventional open technique and another thirty with a new minimally invasive technique. Patients in both groups were followed up for at least 9 months. Results: There was less preoperative and postoperative blood loss, less soft-tissue destruction, less pain postoperatively, shorter hospital stays, and early mobilization and faster union with the minimally invasive technique. Conclusion: The study concludes that minimally invasive technique is superior to conventional (open) DHS in stable fractures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karmakar et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: