The comparative study of the treatment to intertrochanteric fractures and subtrochanteric fractures of the aged patients
- VernacularTitle:股骨近端髓内钉与动力髋螺钉治疗老年股骨转子间及转子下骨折的比较研究
- Author:
Wei ZHANG
;
Jian ZOU
;
Congfeng LUO
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Aged;
Femoral fractures;
Fracture fixation, intramedullary;
Bone screws
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2000;0(11):-
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare and to assess the treatment of interchanteric fractures and subtrochanteric fractures by proximal femoral nail(PFN) and dynamic hip screw(DHS). Methods The patients with intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures were divided into PFN and DHS group randomly. The common conditions, ASA score, operative procedures and postoperative conditions were evaluated. Results During the course of operation, the mean operation time was 62.8 min in DHS group, 45.4 min in PFN group. The mean bleeding was 230 ml in DHS group, 164 ml in PFN group. The mean length of incision was 13.7 cm in DHS group, 8.7 cm in PFN group. The mean drainage was 120 ml in DHS group, 106 ml in PFN group, there was no significant difference between two groups. 84 (94.4%) patients of DHS group were followed-up 12-25 months with a mean of 18.6 months. 74(94.9%)patients of PFN group were followed-up 12-21 months with a mean of 18.2 months. In DHS group, the average fracture healing time was 4.6 months, 2 patients with deep hematoma, the reduction was unsatisfactory in 6 patients, while in PFN group, the average fracture healing time was 4.3 months, deep hematoma occurred in 1 patient, the reduction was unsatisfactory in 5 patients, but there was no significant difference between two groups. The leg length measured at 12 months post-operatively revealed that the diseased site in DHS group was averagely 1.4 cm shorter than the healthy site; that the diseased site in PFN group was averagely 0.8 cm shorter than the healthy site. Conclusion There is no significant difference between two operative methods concerning to bony healing time, complications and recovery of the function. PFN is less invasive, easier to perform and with shorter operation time.
