Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Nov;18(6):977-86.
doi: 10.1007/s00776-013-0468-0. Epub 2013 Oct 2.

Percutaneous compression plate versus proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in treating elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures: a prospective randomized study

Qingshan Guo  1 , Yue Shen, Zhaowen Zong, Yufeng Zhao, Huayu Liu, Xiang Hua, Hui Chen
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Percutaneous compression plate versus proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in treating elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures: a prospective randomized study

Qingshan Guo et al. J Orthop Sci. 2013 Nov.

Abstract

Background: The treatment and management of hip fracture poses a great challenge for clinicians in osteology and surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical effectiveness of the percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) versus proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Methods: A prospective randomized study was carried out from January 2008 to October 2011 involving 90 elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures (90 hips) who underwent minimally invasive surgery using the PCCP or PFNA. Evaluation variables, including operation time, intra- and perioperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and final clinical outcomes by the end of follow-up, were used to compare the benefits of these two implants.

Results: Among 90 subjects, 45 received PCCPs and 45 received PFNAs. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The median follow-up time was 16.9 months (12-24 months). In the PCCP group, the mean operative time was 53 min (40-75 min), and the mean intra- and perioperative blood losses were 100.7 ml (60-150 ml) and 916 ml (433-1339 ml), respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the PFNA group. Nevertheless, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative complications and final clinical outcomes including pain complaints, range of motion of the hip, postoperative hip function at 12 months, and the recovery of walking ability to pre-injury status between these two implants.

Conclusions: Overall, the PCCP and PFNA appear to have similar clinical effects in treating elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures, although the PCCP provided shorter operation times and less blood loss than PFNA. Both implants discussed were demonstrated to be ideal for the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the enrollment of patients for the percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) groups
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Pictures of the percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) used in this study. a The PCCP implant, manufactured by Orthofix Orthopedics International (Via delle Nazioni 9, Bussolengo, Italy); b the PFNA implant (length 170 or 240 mm), manufactured by Synthes Inc. (1302 Wrights Lane East, West Chester, PA, USA)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pre- and postoperative radiographs of representative cases. a, b A case in the percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) group: b reduction and fixation of the fracture were achieved. c, d A case in the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) group; d the fracture was reduced after receiving a PFNA
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Braithwaite RS, Col NF, Wong JB. Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:364–370. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51110.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zethraeus N, Gerdtham UG. Estimating the costs of hip fracture and potential savings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:255–267. doi: 10.1017/S026646230001223X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1726–1733. doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cumming RG, Nevitt MC, Cummings SR. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Epidemiol Rev. 1997;19:244–257. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a017956. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;348:87–94. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199803000-00015. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms