Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Charles Nicolle Hospital, Rouen University Hospital Center, 76031 Rouen cedex, France.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 Dec;95(8):592-8. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.08.007.
Fixation devices to treat trochanteric fractures belong to two general categories: dynamic hip screw (DHS) type and intramedullary type implants. In spite of possible pitfalls, both are considered valid options. Comparing a sliding screw-plate system (DHS) along a mini-invasive nailing device (BCM nail) with primary insertion of the cephalic screw, sheds light on the debated management of trochanteric fractures.
Due to its design, the BCM nailing system allows a stable internal fixation and promotes enhanced postoperative functional recovery.
To test this hypothesis in a comparative prospective case-control study using the DHS screw-plate as a reference.
Two groups of 30 patients, older than 60 years old, with trochanteric fractures were included in this study. The screw-plates were placed according to the standard method. Regarding the nailing system, the cephalic screw was positioned first, then the nail was inserted through the screw via a mini-invasive approach and locked distally using a bicortical screw. Comparison between the two groups was based on (1) operative data: operating time, intra- and postoperative blood loss; (2) immediate postoperative course: complications, length of hospital stay, delay to sitting in a wheelchair; (3) the postdischarge evolution: weightbearing, readmission to hospital; (4) functional outcomes: recovery and mobility; (5) anatomical outcomes: restitution and bone healing.
The operating time (54+/-8.8 min vs 59+/-13.8 min) and intraoperative (1.37+/-0.98 vs 1.90+/-1.43) and at Day 3 (1.25+/-1.05 vs 1.82+/-1.5) blood loss (haemoglobin loss), were favourable to the screw-plate subgroup (p<0.05). The delay to sitting in a wheelchair (4.76+/-1.53 d vs 4+/-1.44 d) was favourable to the nail subgroup (p<0.05). There was a higher incidence of secondary displacements in the screw-plate subgroup (3/26 [11.5%] vs 0/25 [0%]) (p<0.05). The screw-plate subgroup demonstrated a poorer healing rate at 3 months (88% vs 100%) (p<0.05). Regarding functional recovery, a lesser decrease in the Parker score was observed in the nail subgroup at 3 postoperative months (2.42+/-2.3 vs 1.52+/-1.44) (p<0.05).
This study has shown the benefits of the BCM nail in terms of stability. But the potential advantages of this mini-invasive technique were limited by ancillary-related difficulties which need to be rectified. These preliminary results are in favour of a further development of this innovating device.
治疗转子间骨折的固定装置属于两类:动力髋螺钉(DHS)型和髓内型植入物。尽管存在可能的陷阱,但两者都被认为是有效的选择。比较滑动螺钉板系统(DHS)与微创钉(BCM 钉)沿骨干内插入的主要插入,揭示了转子间骨折有争议的治疗方法。
由于其设计,BCM 钉系统允许稳定的内固定并促进术后功能恢复的增强。
使用 DHS 螺钉板作为参考,通过比较前瞻性病例对照研究来检验这一假设。
本研究纳入了两组 30 名年龄大于 60 岁的转子间骨折患者。螺钉板按照标准方法放置。对于钉系统,先放置头钉,然后通过微创途径将钉穿过螺钉,并使用双皮质螺钉将其锁定在远端。两组之间的比较基于以下内容:(1)手术数据:手术时间、术中及术后失血量;(2)术后即刻过程:并发症、住院时间、坐轮椅延迟;(3)出院后演变:负重、再入院;(4)功能结果:恢复和移动;(5)解剖结果:复位和骨愈合。
手术时间(54+/-8.8 分钟对 59+/-13.8 分钟)和术中(1.37+/-0.98 对 1.90+/-1.43)和术后第 3 天(1.25+/-1.05 对 1.82+/-1.5)的失血量(血红蛋白丢失)对螺钉板亚组有利(p<0.05)。坐轮椅的延迟(4.76+/-1.53 天对 4+/-1.44 天)对钉组有利(p<0.05)。螺钉板亚组的继发性移位发生率较高(3/26[11.5%]对 0/25[0%])(p<0.05)。螺钉板亚组在 3 个月时愈合率较低(88%对 100%)(p<0.05)。关于功能恢复,在术后 3 个月,钉组帕克评分下降较少(2.42+/-2.3 对 1.52+/-1.44)(p<0.05)。
本研究表明 BCM 钉在稳定性方面具有优势。但这种微创技术的潜在优势受到了需要纠正的辅助相关困难的限制。这些初步结果支持进一步开发这种创新设备。