Comparison of the efficacy of femoral stable interlocking intramedullary nail and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in the treatment of anterograde intertrochanteric fractures
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20210916-00561
- VernacularTitle:股骨角稳定带锁髓内钉与近端防旋髓内钉治疗顺转子间骨折的疗效比较
- Author:
Baoxi HAO
1
;
Peng JIA
;
Yongqing WANG
;
Zhiqiang YANG
;
Liang REN
;
Zhuo GAO
;
Zhihui ZHAO
;
Zhanmin XU
Author Information
1. 南开大学附属第四中心医院骨科，天津 300140
- Keywords:
Femoral fractures;
Fracture fixation, intramedullary;
Internal fixators
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2022;42(18):1212-1219
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the effect of femoral stable interlocking intramedullary nail (FSIIN) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in the treatment of anterograde intertrochanteric fractures.Methods:From June 2015 to December 2020, 68 cases with surgically treated of femoral intertrochanteric fractures were included. Among them, there were 37 cases (17 males and 20 females) in proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) group, and the age ranged from 48 to 78 years (62.9±7.1 years); 18 cases were on the left and 19 cases on the right; AO/OTA classification: 16 cases of A1 type and 21 cases of A2 type. And there were 31 cases (18 males and 13 females) in FSIIN group without distal locking, the age ranged from 47 to 84 years (62.4±8.6 years); 15 cases were on the left and 16 cases on the right; AO/OTA classification: 11 cases of A1 type and 20 cases of A2 type. Fracture fixation time, incision length and number, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, visual analogue scale (VAS) and Harris scores at the last follow-up were compared between the two fixation methods.Results:Both groups were followed up, and the follow-up time was 15.3±3.9 months in the FSIIN group and 15.7±3.9 months in the PFNA group, and the difference was not statistically significant ( t=0.42, P=0.675). In FSIIN group, the fracture fixation time was 26.6±11.5 min, the total incision length was 7.6±1.8 cm, the intraoperative blood loss was 107.6±42.8 ml and the fracture healing time was 10.1±1.3 weeks. In PFNA group, the fracture fixation time was 40.3±10.8 min, the total incision length was 12.2±1.8 cm, the intraoperative blood loss was 209.4±52.0 ml and the fracture healing time was 16.3±1.6 weeks. In FSIIN group, the fracture fixation time ( t=3.46, P<0.001), total incision length ( t=2.39, P=0.020), intraoperative blood loss ( t=3.16, P<0.001), fracture healing time ( t=2.80, P<0.001) were all less than those in PFNA group, and the difference was statistically significant. The VAS score of FSIIN group was 1.4±0.5 points, and that of PFNA group was 1.6±0.6 points, and the difference was not statistically significant ( t=0.68, P=0.503). The Harris score was 84.5±2.2 in FSIIN group and 83.3±2.5 in PFNA group, and the difference was not statistically significant ( t=0.63, P=0.530). At the last follow-up, 29 patients in the FSIIN group were very satisfied with the operation, and 2 patients were satisfied with the operation, with a satisfaction rate of 100%. In PFNA group, 30 patients were very satisfied with the operation, 7 patients were satisfied with the operation, and the satisfaction rate was 100%. Conclusion:Compared with PFNA, micro-invasive and micro-stress shielding methodes of FSIIN in the fixation of anterograde intertrochanteric fractures is more minimally invasive, simple, time-saving, less bleeding, less risk, less pain, minimal stress shilding and enhanced recovery after surgery. The effect of treatment is similar in FSIIN and PFNA group.
