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
. 2021 Aug;55(4):293-298.
doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2021.20193.

Comparison of systemic inflammatory responses of proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw after treatment of patients with pertrochanteric fractures: A prospective comparative study

Affiliations

Comparison of systemic inflammatory responses of proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw after treatment of patients with pertrochanteric fractures: A prospective comparative study

Kushtrim Grezda et al. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2021 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the differences between the induction of early postoperative inflammatory response and muscle tissue injury biomarkers after treatment of pertrochanteric fractures by dynamic hip screw (DHS) or proximal femoral nail (PFN).

Methods: In this prospective comparative study, 40 patients with AO-Müller/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) 31. A1-31.A2 pertrochanteric fractures were enrolled and allocated one of the two groups based on the treatment type: group DHS, (n =20,mean age = 78.4 ± 6.9 years) and group PFN (n = 20, mean age = 77.75 ± 7.0 years). Operation time was recorded in both groups. In each patient, circulating levels of high sensitivity interleukin-6 (hs-IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and creatine kinase (CK), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)weremeasured fromblood samples collected 1 hour preoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively.

Results: The operation time was slightly shorter in group PFN than in group DHS (51.9 ± 21.1 and 38 ± 15.2 min, respectively; P = 0.02). DHS and PFN both increased hs-IL-6 (143.81 ± 89.12 and 94.13 ± 67.14, respectively), CRP (98.84 ± 31.81 and 104.4 ± 31.80, respectively), and CK (400.8 ± 31.81 and 250.7 ± 31.80, respectively) 24 hours postoperatively. However, PFN compared to DHS resulted in a lesser increase from baseline to 24 hours postoperatively only in hs IL-6 (58.91 ± 59.02 vs 113.30 ± 76.24, respectively; P = 0.0016) and CK (163.6 ± 123.3 vs 310.0 ± 198.3, respectively; P < 0.0001).Moreover, there was a positive correlation of CK levels' surgery time in DHS (r = 0.38, P = 0.0065) and PFN (r = 0.45, P = 0.0013).

Conclusion: The results of this study have shown that PFN can induce a lower early postoperative inflammatory response and muscle tissue injury based on the assessment of hs-IL-6 and CK levels, compared to DHS in after the treatment patients pertrochanteric fractures.

Level of evidence: Level II, Therapeutic Study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT trial flow diagram.
Figure 2. A-D.
Figure 2. A-D.
Effects of PFN and DHS in the systemic release of proinflammatory mediators and muscle injury biomarkers in human plasma. IL-6, pg/mL (A); CRP, mg/L (B); ESR, m/h (C); and CK, UI/L (D) plasma levels from trochanteric region fracture treated patients with PFN or DHS 1 hpre-op and 24 h post-op.0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 (students ttest) vs 1 hand DHS. Values are expressed as mean SD (n=20).
Figure 3. A, B.
Figure 3. A, B.
Correlation between the releases of CK plasma levels throughout the surgery in patients treated with DHS (A) and PFN (B) surgical techniques.

Comment in

References

    1. Brauer CA, Coca-Perraillon M, Cutler DM, Rosen AB. Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA. 2009;302(14): 1573–1579. 10.1001/jama.2009.1462 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roberts SE, Goldacre Mj. Time trends and demography of mortality after fractured neck of femur in an English population, 1968–98: Database study. BMJ. 2003;327(7418): 771–775. 10.1136/bmj.327.7418.771 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Parker MJ, Handoll HHG. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD000093. 10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oh JH, Hwang JH, Sahu D. Nailing of intertrochanteric fractures: Review on pitfalls and technical tips. JOTR. 2010;14:3-7. 10.1016/j.jotr.2010.08.006 - DOI
    1. Yu X, Wang H, Duan X, Liu M, Xiang Z.. Intramedullary versus extramedullary internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fracture—A meta-analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018;52(4): 299–307. 10.1016/j.aott.2018.02.009 - DOI - PMC - PubMed