Key result
Proximal femoral nailing improves 2-year functional scores by ~8 points versus cemented hemiarthroplasty for intertrochanteric fractures.
Why the study?
Elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures require early mobilization, but the comparative functional outcomes and complications of PFN versus cemented hemiarthroplasty remain unclear.
Does PFN improve functional outcomes compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures?
RCT (n=60)
Consecutive and alternative allotment
No
Does PFN improve functional outcomes compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures?
PFN provides better functional outcomes and shorter operative time compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty for elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PFN associated with higher 2-year Harris hip scores than hemiarthroplasty; leaves open optimal choice pending randomized trials.
Aim: Aim of the study is to analyse and compare the functional outcomes and radiological results of two different surgical modalities, PFN and cemented hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Background: Elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures should be mobilized early to reduce the morbidity and mortality. While cemented hemiarthroplasty allows early weight bearing, the prolonged surgical time increase the blood loss and mortality, whereas with PFN once the fracture becomes stable allows early mobilization thus overcoming the problems of recumbency. PFN efficiently preserves the femoral head and the abductor mechanism and thus has the biomechanical advantage of increased range of hip joint movements and better functional outcome. Materials and methods: Sixty patients of age 60 years and above with comminuted intertrochanteric fractures treated by PFN or cemented hemiarthroplasty were taken up for the prospective study in our institute between january2013 and june 2015. 30 patients underwent PFN and 30 patients had hemiarthroplasty. Average period of follow up was 2 years. Post-operative complications and mortality rates were compared between the two groups. Functional results and the hip range of movements were assessed by Harris Hip Score (HHS). In the mean follow up period of 22months radiological examination was done to assess the results & complications. Results: The demographic and background data of the patients in the two groups are statistically similar. At 2 years follow up PFN group patients had a mean HHS of 85.89 and HA group had 78.11. Pain, severity and range of hip movements are better in PFN group than HA group. Radiologicaly 4 patients in HA group had stem loosening and 2 patients had screw cut out in the PFN group with subsequent pain in the final follow up. Conclusion: PFN is a better option for the treatment of elderly intertrochanteric fractures as the operative time is short, easier surgical procedure & has less mortality. PFN also gives a better functional outcome in the late follow up than hemiarthoplasty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
NS Rajarajan (2018) conducted an RCT in Unstable intertrochanteric fractures (n=60). Proximal femoral nailing (PFN) vs. Cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) was evaluated on Harris Hip Score (HHS) at 2 years (p=<0.0001). Proximal femoral nailing resulted in a significantly better functional outcome at 2 years compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty (mean Harris Hip Score 85.89 vs 78.11, p<0.0001) in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: