A Comparison of the Clinicoradiological Outcomes of Intertrochanteric Fractures Treated Using Proximal Femoral Nail and Proximal Femoral Nail Anti-rotation

Background Managing intertrochanteric fractures presents challenges for orthopedic surgeons, not only in fixing the fracture but also in preventing and managing associated complications, especially in the vulnerable geriatric population. Cephalomedullary nails are commonly used for surgical fixation due to their favorable functional profile, which preserves the hip's abductor lever arm and proximal femur anatomy. However, there's a lack of data comparing two major options: proximal femoral nail (PFN) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA). This study aimed to compare the radiological fracture reduction and fixation as well as functional outcomes of these two implants in treating intertrochanteric fractures. Methods The study, spanning 24 months, involved a prospective comparative design. Participants included patients diagnosed with intertrochanteric femur fractures classified as AO Type 31 A1, AO Type 31 A2, and AO Type 31 A3. Fifty patients were evenly distributed into PFN and PFNA groups. Preoperatively, clinical and radiological assessments were conducted, along with serum vitamin D level measurements. Surgeries, performed under anesthesia with image intensifier guidance, followed defined reduction and implant insertion protocols for each group. Postoperatively, evaluations were conducted up to six months, examining parameters such as tip-apex distance (TAD), Cleveland index, and modified Harris hip score, while documenting intraoperative duration and blood loss. Data analysis utilized the statistical software Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), employing descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, independent t-tests, and paired t-tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results In our study, 50 patients were enrolled, with equal gender distribution (64.0% male, 36.0% female, p=1.000). The mean ages in the PFN and PFNA groups were 66.2 ± 9.8 years and 66.4 ± 11.3 years, respectively (p=0.936). All fractures united by six months, with no implant-related complications reported. PFNA showed significantly lower blood loss and shorter surgery durations (p<0.001). TAD and neck shaft angle were similar between groups (p=0.826, p=0.555). Cleveland index placement and modified Harris hip score improvement were comparable (p=0.836, p<0.001). Predominant vitamin D deficiency was observed in both groups. Conclusion PFNA offers measurable intraoperative benefits over conventional PFN in terms of operative time, blood loss, and need for fluoroscopic imaging. However, no statistically observable benefits were noted in postoperative functional outcomes or complications between the two implants.