Key result
PFNA significantly improved hip joint functional recovery compared to DHS, demonstrated by a higher mean Harris Hip Score at follow-up (80.73 vs 64.19, P<0.001) in elderly patients with high-risk lateral wall intertrochanteric fractures.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of dynamic hip screw versus femoral nail antirotation in treating high-risk lateral wall intertrochanteric fractures.
Does Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) improve functional recovery and reduce complications compared to Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) in elderly patients with high-risk lateral femoral wall intertrochanteric hip fractures?
Cohort (n=98)
No
Does Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) improve functional recovery and reduce complications compared to Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) in elderly patients with high-risk lateral femoral wall intertrochanteric hip fractures?
Absolute Event Rate: 80.73% vs 64.19%
p-value: p=<0.001
PFNA is more effective than DHS for treating high-risk lateral wall intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly, offering better functional recovery and fewer complications.
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dynamic hip screw (DHS) and femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in the treatment of lateral-wall high-risk type of intertrochanteric fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 98 patients with high-risk intertrochanteric fractures of the lateral wall who underwent surgery from January 2019 to December 2020 were selected as the study subjects. Of these, 52 were treated surgically with PFNA (mean age 73.45±5.95 years) and 46 with DHS (71.37±6.22 years). We followed up these patients and compared the occurrence of the 2 surgical methods in terms of perioperative period, complication rate, and functional recovery. RESULTS In terms of lateral wall fracture, there were 2 cases of PFNA and 10 cases of DHS, and the difference between groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). Operative time (mean 54.94±7.29 vs 61.17±6.45) and intraoperative blood loss (72.80±9.18 vs 96.12±8.22) was significantly lower in the PFNA group compared to the DHS group (all P<0.05). Efficacy in the PFNA group was significantly better than in the DHS group. The HHS at follow-up was significantly higher in the PFNA group (mean 80.73±9.20 vs 64.19±8.12) than in the DHS group (P<0.001). The VAS score at follow-up was significantly lower in the PFNA group (1.78±0.34 vs 2.65±0.23) than in the DHS group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS PFNA is more effective than DHS in the treatment of high-risk lateral wall fractures in the elderly, with the advantages of lower incidence of complications and better recovery of hip joint function. PFNA warrants clinical application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in High-risk lateral femoral wall intertrochanteric hip fractures (n=98). Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) vs. Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) was evaluated on Harris Hip Score (HHS) at follow-up (p=<0.001). PFNA significantly improved hip joint functional recovery compared to DHS, demonstrated by a higher mean Harris Hip Score at follow-up (80.73 vs 64.19, P<0.001) in elderly patients with high-risk lateral wall intertrochanteric fractures.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: