“SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF SUBTROCHANTERIC FEMORAL FRACTURES BY PFN AND DCS - A COMPARATIVE STUDY”
-
Published:2022-03-01
Issue:
Volume:
Page:34-36
-
ISSN:
-
Container-title:INDIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:IJAR
Author:
K Bhasme Virendra1, Ramanand Madhuchandra1, C Raj Arun2
Affiliation:
1. Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi. 2. Junior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi.
Abstract
Background: The treatment of Subtrochanteric fractures continues to be a challenge in orthopaedic trauma, especially in
geriatric population. Among the various surgical technique- Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) and Dynamic Condylar Screw
(DCS) are the ideally sought implants for xation.
Aims and objectives: This study was designed to assess the clinical, functional and radiological outcomes and complications of femoral
subtrochanteric fractures treated with PFN and DCS
Methodology: This is a prospective observational study of 35 cases of subtrochanteric femoral fractures admitted to KIMS hospital, Hubballi,
Karnataka. These 35 cases then randomized into two groups of PFN and DCS. All patients were followed up with radiographs for every 4 weeks
th for 3 months and on 6 month and outcome was assessed using modied Harris Hip Score.
Results: In our study, mean duration of hospital stay was found to be 11.23 ± 3.038 days in PFN group and 14.08 ± 2.178 days in DCS group and
mean time for union was 14.91 ± 3.006 weeks in PFN group and 17.33 ± 2.871 in DCS group. Good to excellent results were seen in 81.82% of
subtrochanteric fractures in PFN group and 53.85% in DCS group.
Conclusion: From this study, we conclude that, functionally there were no signicant difference between DCS and PFN but, PFN has advantages
in terms of faster surgical procedure, less blood loss, shorter hospital stays and less time for union. However, in complex subtrochanteric
fractures DCS denitely a reliable and a backup implant.
Publisher
World Wide Journals
Reference13 articles.
1. McLaurin, T. M., & Lawler, E. A. (2004). Treatment modalities for subtrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Techniques in orthopaedics, 19(3), 197-213. 2. Zhou, Z. B., Chen, S., Gao, Y. S., Sun, Y. Q., Zhang, C. Q., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Subtrochanteric femur fracture treated by intramedullary fixation. Chinese Journal of Traumatology, 18(06), 336-341. 3. Kregor, P. J., Obremskey, W. T., Kreder, H. J., & Swiontkowski, M. F. (2005). Unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Journal of orthopaedic trauma, 19(1), 63-66. 4. Herscovici Jr, D., Pistel, W. L., & Sanders, R. W. (2000). Evaluation and treatment of high subtrochanteric femur fractures. American Journal of Orthopedics (Belle Mead, NJ), 29(9 Suppl), 27-33. 5. Nungu, K. S., Olerud, C., & Rehnberg, L. (1993). Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures with the AO dynamic condylar screw. Injury, 24(2), 90-92.
|
|