Vargas OPD, Antonio RCE, Mejía RLC

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 156-162
PDF size: 695.65 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: intertrochanteric fractures present a public health problem with economic, social and psychological impact. Development of implants that improve biomechanical environment are essential for a speedy recovery and fewer complications. We present the results obtained in 1 year with Centromedular Proximal Femoral Nail vs. DHS.
Methods and Materials: Prospective, observational and comparative study on patients over 60 years old, with transtrochanteric fracture AO 31A1-3 and 31A2-3 with DHS or Proximal Femoral Nail TAN placement, with a follow up of 20 weeks with a Harris scale.
Results: 113 patients with transtrochanteric fracture were operated in one year, 77 DHS and 36 centromedular nails, average age of 80 years, predominantly female 3:1. With post surgery hospital stay of 2 to 3 days with nail (p=0.038) vs DHS, and an anatomical reduction of 72.23%, Montoya III consolidation at 14 weeks and an 80 to 89 Hip Harris Score; having good functional performance 20 weeks after surgery.
Conclusions: The centromedular nail provides an improved biomechanical environment with a shorter lever arm, giving a greater load delivery and allowing less collapse for a medial stable configuration, facilitates an anatomical reduction, thus reducing the post surgery hospital stay (p=0.038), better hemodynamic recovery, with a quicker rehabilitation assisted in the first weeks, thus allowing consolidation of the fracture and a prompt ambulation, no significant advantage is observed in the functionality with respect the DHS (p=1.0) being very similar methods on a medium time frame.

REFERENCES

1. Nieto L, Zamorano A. Consideraciones epidemiológicas de las fracturas del fémur proximal. Ortho-tips 2012;8(3):135-9.

2. Mendoza J. Fracturas complejas del fémur proximal y su tratamiento: Orto-tips 2012;8(3):171-8.

3. Gari E, Peña O. Resultados del tratamiento de fracturas intertrocantericas inestables con clavo cefalomedular bloqueado. Rev Col de Or Tra 2008;22(1):60-6.

4. Espinosa H. Tratamiento actual de las fracturas pertrocantéricas. Ortho-tips 2012;8(3):165-170.

5. Adams C, Robinson M. Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intramedullary Nail Versus Dynamic Screw and Plate for Intertrochanteric Fractures of the Femur. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2001;15(6):394-400.

6. Morihara T, Arai Y. Proximal femoral nail for treatment of trochanteric femoral fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2007;15(3):273-7.

7. Anglen J. Weinstein J. Nail or Plate Fixation of Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures: Changing Pattern of Practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:700-7.

8. Anil M. The use of an Intramedullary Nail vs. Dynamic Hip Screw in the treatment of Intertrochantric fractures; a case cohort study. Kerala Journal of Orthopaedics 2012;25:6-13.

9. Shipper I, Steyerberg E. Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2004;86- B:86-94.

10. Sung-Rak L. Seong-Tae K. The Stability Score of the Intramedullary Nailed Intertrochanteric Fractures: Stability of Nailed Fracture and Postoperative Patient Mobilization. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2013;5:10-18.

11. Zhang S. Zhang K. InterTan Nail Versus Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-Asia in the Treatment of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures. 2013;36(3):288-94.