ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The intertrochanteric fracture is a frequently occurring fracture, often attributed to osteoporosis in older populations. Recently, there has been a proposal to perform early surgical fixation on elderly patients to facilitate early rehabilitation. This approach has been shown to have a beneficial effect in lowering comorbidities. The study aims to compare the efficacy of the twin screw derotation type cephalomedullary nail with that of the single helical blade type cephalomedullary nail in the management of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. METHODOLOGY: The research sample included patients from the orthopedic outpatient and emergency departments of Adesh Medical College and Hospital, Ambala Cantt, India, who were scheduled for surgery for unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures. The patients were categorized into two groups according to the kind of implant they were given: either a twin screw derotation cephalomedullary nail or a single helical blade cephalomedullary nail. The functional result was evaluated by comparing the modified Harris hip score (HHS). Patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures, including reverse oblique fractures and fractures with posteromedial comminution, as well as patients who provided consent, were included in this study. RESULTS: Thirteen individuals received treatment with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA2), whereas 19 individuals received treatment with proximal femoral nail (PFN). The mean age in the PFNA2 group was 69.51, whereas the mean age in the PFN group was 70.804. There were three patients in the PFNA2 group and five patients in the PFN group who had a tip apex distance of more than 25 mm. According to the Cleveland index, nine patients in the PFNA2 group and eight patients in the PFN group had an implant location that was not optimum. Four patients in the PFNA2 group and seven patients in the PFN group had a neck shaft angle difference of more than 10° between their undamaged and operated sides. The mean HHS was 74.55 for the PFNA2 group and 69.88 for the PFN group. The PFNA2 group exhibited four problems, whereas the PFN group had five issues. CONCLUSION: The study found that both implants offer similar functional outcomes, with adherence to specific radiological parameters optimizing results. While both face similar challenges with osteoporosis, there was no notable distinction between them. Notably, the PFNA2 group showed superior outcomes in perioperative morbidity.
