Key result
The proximal femoral nail improved Harris hip scores (90.25 vs. 81.6) and reduced blood loss (97.25 vs. 294.0 ml) compared to trochanteric support plates in pertrochanteric hip fractures.
Why the study?
The proximal femoral nail and dynamic hip screw with trochanteric support plate are both used for pertrochanteric hip fracture, but whether one implant is better than the other remained unclear.
Does the proximal femoral nail improve surgical and clinical outcomes compared to the dynamic hip screw with trochanteric support plate in patients with pertrochanteric hip fracture?
Observational (n=40)
Does the proximal femoral nail improve surgical and clinical outcomes compared to the dynamic hip screw with trochanteric support plate in patients with pertrochanteric hip fracture?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.25% vs 81.6%
The proximal femoral nail is a superior minimally invasive implant for pertrochanteric fractures compared to the trochanteric support plate, offering reduced surgical time, blood loss, and hospitalization.
PFN may reduce incision length and recovery time in suitable pertrochanteric fractures; leaves open need for RCTs before changing implant choice.
Introduction: The proximal femoral nail (PFN) and dynamic hip screw with trochanteric support plate are two implants used in the management of pertrochanteric hip fracture. In this study, we try to find out if one implant is better than the other. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients were included with 20 each in both the groups between August 2016 and February 2018 in this prospective observational study. All patients were recorded and analyzed for the length of incision (LoI), period of hospitalization (PoH), blood loss, time of union (ToU), duration of surgery (DoS), Parker and Palmer mobility score (PPMS), and Harris hip score (HHS). Results: PFN was found to have a statistical advantage over TFN in terms of LoI (6.4 vs. 14.7 cm.), DoS (70.65 vs. 105.25 min), blood loss (97.25 vs. 294.0 ml), ToU (14.9 vs. 17 days), and PoH (18.1 vs. 21.6 days). While PPMS (7.05 vs. 6.5) was comparable in both groups, HHS (90.25 vs. 81.6) was better in the PFN group. Conclusions: PFN was found to be a better minimally invasive implant for pertrochanteric fractures when closed reduction is possible in terms of LoI, PoH, ToU, DoS, blood loss, and HHS but not for PPMS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Pertrochanteric hip fracture (n=40). Proximal femoral nail (PFN) vs. Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric support plate was evaluated on Harris hip score (HHS). The proximal femoral nail improved Harris hip scores (90.25 vs. 81.6) and reduced blood loss (97.25 vs. 294.0 ml) compared to trochanteric support plates in pertrochanteric hip fractures.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: