A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures.

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we initiated a prospective, randomised, clinical trial comparing the AMBI, TGN and PFN operations used for treatment of unstable fractures, for differences in intra-operative use, consolidation, complications and functional outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have compared the pre-, intra- and post-operating variables of AMBI, TGN and PFN operations that were used for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures, of 120 patients all above 60 years old diagnosed with extracapsular hip fractures classified as AO Type 31-A2 or Type 31-A3.

RESULTS

According to our results the three methods are comparable in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures of patients above 60 years old.

CONCLUSION

The AMBI remains the gold standard for the fractures of trochanteric region. TGN has an easier and faster procedure, facilitates early weight bearing and had minor late complications. An improper use of the PFN system was the reason for the most complications and the longer operation time of the device. PFN is also an accepted minimally invasive implant for unstable proximal femoral fractures but future modification of the implant to avoid Z-effect phenomenon, careful surgical technique and selection of the patients should reduce its high complication rate.