Butt Faisal Farooq, Hussain Adnan Shabbair, Khan Ahmed Mushtaq, Sultan Maria
Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2017 Oct-Dec;29(4):697-701.
Neck of femur fractures are the most prevalent type of injury in elderly trauma patients. Both intra and extra capsular type of fractures are equally distributed in the given population. Traditionally, Extra capsular fractures are fixed with Dynamic Hip screw or Intra medullary nailing based on the type of fracture. NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) recommends fixing 31-A1 and 31-A2 fractures with DHS (Dynamic Hip Screw) whereas AO recommends fixing 31-A1 with DHS and 31-A2.1 subtype with DHS and 31-A2.2 and 31-A2.3with IMN (Intra medullary nail). In regional trauma centre 178 patients, 125 females and 53 males with extra capsular neck of femur fractures fixed were selected in a retrospective study. The data was spanning over a period of 1 year. Fractures were classified as per AO classification by two registrars. The implant selection was analysed in terms of the short term out come to find out the cost effectiveness of one over the other. The quality of reduction was assessed as per standard criteria and consideration of lateral femoral wall thickness was taken into account to assess the stability of fracture. The study found more risk of peri prosthetic fractures associated with Intra medullary nailing as compared to Dynamic Hip screw and more risk of Varus collapse was found to be associated with DHS as compared to IM Nail. Moreover, despite of Nail being costly as compared to DHS, the study did not reveal its superiority in terms of inpatient hospital stay. In appropriately selected patient DHS provides results in terms of hospital stay, revision rate and wound complications comparable to IM Nail in the short term justifying its use in the above-mentioned fracture patterns as per the standard National Institute of clinical Excellence guidelines.
股骨颈骨折是老年创伤患者中最常见的损伤类型。在特定人群中,囊内和囊外骨折类型分布相当。传统上,根据骨折类型,囊外骨折采用动力髋螺钉或髓内钉固定。英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)建议用动力髋螺钉固定31 - A1和31 - A2型骨折,而AO则建议用动力髋螺钉固定31 - A1型骨折,用动力髋螺钉固定31 - A2.1亚型骨折,用髓内钉固定31 - A2.2和31 - A2.3亚型骨折。在一家地区创伤中心,一项回顾性研究选取了178例接受囊外股骨颈骨折固定的患者,其中125例为女性,53例为男性。数据涵盖1年时间。两位登记员根据AO分类法对骨折进行分类。从短期结果方面分析植入物的选择,以找出哪种植入物更具成本效益。根据标准标准评估复位质量,并考虑股骨外侧壁厚度以评估骨折稳定性。研究发现,与动力髋螺钉相比,髓内钉固定相关的假体周围骨折风险更高;与髓内钉相比,动力髋螺钉相关的内翻塌陷风险更高。此外,尽管髓内钉比动力髋螺钉成本更高,但该研究并未显示其在住院时间方面具有优势。在适当选择的患者中,就住院时间、翻修率和伤口并发症而言,动力髋螺钉在短期内提供的结果与髓内钉相当,这证明根据英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所的标准指南,动力髋螺钉可用于上述骨折类型。