Prospective Research Comparing Different Trochanteric Fracture Fixation Techniques

Aim Evaluation and comparison of various methods of trochanteric fracture fixation. Methods This study was conducted prospectively at the Orthopaedics Department of Dr. D Y Patil Medical College and Research Centre. The study spanned 18 months and involved 100 patients treated in the outpatient and the emergency department. Patients who fulfilled that specific criteria were selected for this study and the appropriate surgical intervention for each group was determined through radiological examination. Results Of the 100 patients, 55 (55%) were male and 45 (45%) females. Patients in our collection ranged from 20 to 90 years old. Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN), Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS ), and Proximal Femoral Locking Compression Plate (PFLCP ) groups averaged 56, 58, and 64 years old, respectively. The most common cause of intertrochanteric fracture was domestic falls (60%), followed by road traffic accidents (35%). The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification rated 40 individuals (40%) as stable and 60 as unstable. Most patients in our study had unstable A3 fractures. PFN patients had 16 A3 fractures. In DHS, 32 patients suffered A3 fractures. Twelve PFLCP patients suffered A3 fractures. The smallest group had A1 fractures. Six PFN patients suffered A1 fractures. Two DHS patients had A1 fractures. Two PFLCP patients suffered A1 fractures. PFN group mean scores improved significantly after one and three months in this study. At six months, the PFN group had a significant mean score improvement. Conclusion PFN results ranged from satisfactory to excellent, offering numerous advantages over other methods such as DHS and PFLCP. The benefits of PFN include a shorter lever arm, fracture site compression, and enhanced rotational stability, which contribute to a lower chance of mechanical failure. Additionally, patients treated with PFN typically experience shorter hospital stays, earlier mobilization, less blood loss, shorter surgery times, faster rehabilitation, and quicker bone healing, making PFN a highly effective treatment option for certain fractures.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cureus
Published
2024-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67774
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Hip and Femur Fractures
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.57
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Prospective Research Comparing Different Trochanteric Fracture Fixation Techniques

Ashwin Deshmukh, Rahul Agrawal, Abhishek Nair, Ankit Barosani et al.
1 citations
Cureus
Hip and Femur Fractures
0.57
article

Prospective Research Comparing Different Trochanteric Fracture Fixation Techniques

Ashwin Deshmukh, Rahul Agrawal, Abhishek Nair, Ankit Barosani, Swaroop Solunke
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Aim Evaluation and comparison of various methods of trochanteric fracture fixation. Methods This study was conducted prospectively at the Orthopaedics Department of Dr. D Y Patil Medical College and Research Centre. The study spanned 18 months and involved 100 patients treated in the outpatient and the emergency department. Patients who fulfilled that specific criteria were selected for this study and the appropriate surgical intervention for each group was determined through radiological examination. Results Of the 100 patients, 55 (55%) were male and 45 (45%) females. Patients in our collection ranged from 20 to 90 years old. Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN), Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS ), and Proximal Femoral Locking Compression Plate (PFLCP ) groups averaged 56, 58, and 64 years old, respectively. The most common cause of intertrochanteric fracture was domestic falls (60%), followed by road traffic accidents (35%). The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification rated 40 individuals (40%) as stable and 60 as unstable. Most patients in our study had unstable A3 fractures. PFN patients had 16 A3 fractures. In DHS, 32 patients suffered A3 fractures. Twelve PFLCP patients suffered A3 fractures. The smallest group had A1 fractures. Six PFN patients suffered A1 fractures. Two DHS patients had A1 fractures. Two PFLCP patients suffered A1 fractures. PFN group mean scores improved significantly after one and three months in this study. At six months, the PFN group had a significant mean score improvement. Conclusion PFN results ranged from satisfactory to excellent, offering numerous advantages over other methods such as DHS and PFLCP. The benefits of PFN include a shorter lever arm, fracture site compression, and enhanced rotational stability, which contribute to a lower chance of mechanical failure. Additionally, patients treated with PFN typically experience shorter hospital stays, earlier mobilization, less blood loss, shorter surgery times, faster rehabilitation, and quicker bone healing, making PFN a highly effective treatment option for certain fractures.

CureusVol. 16(8)
Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre (IN), Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune (IN)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Hip and Femur Fractures
0.57
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.