Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Cureus ; 16(6): e61638, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38966482

RESUMO

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.

2.
Cureus ; 16(4): e59063, 2024 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38800311

RESUMO

Background Intertrochanteric fractures, which occur in the hip of older individuals due to the weak and brittle structure of the bone caused by osteoporosis, make up over 50% of all hip fractures. There are several treatment options available for these fractures. The major objective of this study was to carry out a comparative analysis to evaluate the efficacy of dynamic hip screws (DHS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) in treating intertrochanteric fractures. Methodology Two hundred instances of intertrochanteric hip fractures were surgically treated between July 2022 and January 2024 at a tertiary care facility. The evaluation of fractures was conducted in two groups, namely, group 1, which consisted of 140 patients, each having a fracture in one hip, treated using the DHS method. Group 2 consisted of 60 patients, each having a fracture in one hip, treated using the PFN technique. The evaluation of functional results was performed with the Harris hip score. Results In the investigation within these groups, group 1 produced excellent outcomes in 53 patients, which accounts for 37.86% of the total. In group 2, the expected results were achieved in 34 patients (56.67%). Achieved outcomes were favorable in 75 (53.57%) individuals in group 1 and 21 (35%) in group 2. Out of the individuals in group 1, eight (5.71%) saw benefits, whereas four (1.6%) did not gain significantly. In group 2, five (8.33%) individuals benefitted. None of the patients in group 2 had unfavorable outcomes. Conclusion While both PFN and DHS provide comparable outcomes in stable bone, PFN demonstrated superior results in cases of unstable bone. The use of PFN results in reduced surgical duration and a smaller surgical opening. Additionally, PFN exhibited superior specificity compared to DHS, especially in cases with stable intertrochanteric bone.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...