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
. 2024 Aug 25;16(8):e67774.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.67774. eCollection 2024 Aug.

Prospective Research Comparing Different Trochanteric Fracture Fixation Techniques

Affiliations

Prospective Research Comparing Different Trochanteric Fracture Fixation Techniques

Swaroop Solunke et al. Cureus. .

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.

Keywords: fixation; harris hip score; proximal femoral nail; rehabilitation; trochanteric fracture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional Ethics Sub-Committee issued approval IESC/W/160/2024. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Similar articles

References

    1. The future of hip fractures in the United States. Numbers, costs, and potential effects of postmenopausal estrogen. Cummings SR, Rubin SM, Black D. https://journals.lww.com/clinorthop/abstract/1990/03000/the_future_of_hi... Clin Orthop. 1990;163:166. - PubMed
    1. Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, Tufanisco CB. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:229–233. - PubMed
    1. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008:0. - PubMed
    1. Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS. Injury. 1995;26:615–618. - PubMed
    1. Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:330–334. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources