Wu Kailun, Xu Yingjie, Zhang Lei, Zhang Yong, Xu Wu, Chu Jiaobao, Bao Nirong, Ma Qianli, Yang Huilin, Guo Jiong Jiong
Department of Orthopedics, Suzhou Dushuhu Public Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Dushuhu Branch), Suzhou, China.
Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
J Orthop Translat. 2019 Dec 19;21:18-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2019.11.003. eCollection 2020 Mar.
We wondered whether the third-generation gamma nail-3 (GN-3) was better for junior surgeons to learn to treat geriatric intertrochanteric femur fractures than proximal femoral nail antirotation-II (PFNA-II).
This is a prospective randomised study of 350 patients who underwent GN-3 fixation and PFNA-II carried out by junior orthopaedic trauma surgeons from January 2011 February 2017. We compared nail positioning, complication rates, operative and fluoroscopy time, blood transfused, time to mobilisation, hospital stay, fracture union, mismatch, mortality and postoperative outcomes. The minimum follow-up was 12 months (mean, 27.2 months; range, 12-42 months).
The recovery rate of the GN-3 group was higher than that of the PFNA-II group significantly. Compared with the PFNA-II group, the GN-3 group was superior in fracture gap, while operative time, fluoroscopy time, blood transfused, time to mobilisation, hospital stay, Harris Hip Score, reoperation, mortality and so on had no significant difference between two groups. There were five cases with cutout through the femoral neck in the GN-3 group, whereas in the PFNA-II group, we only had two cases with significant difference. The area of match in the GN-3 group conformed to that of the femur of Asian population better than that in the PFNA-II group.
PFNA-II and GN-3 internal fixation are both effective methods for junior orthopaedic trauma surgeons to treat femoral intertrochanteric fracture. But our study reveals better results of the GN-3 group over the PFNA-II group on recovery rate. There is a high rate of cutout in patients treated with the GN-3, especially for those with bone defect or serious osteoporosis.
The results of this work have the potential to improve the cognition of geriatric intertrochanteric femur fractures for junior surgeons, supplying the theoretical basis for the selection and comparison of Intramedullary nail. Such a guidance will allow better healing, fewer complications, and ultimately improved outcomes.
我们想知道对于初级外科医生而言,第三代伽马钉-3(GN-3)在治疗老年股骨转子间骨折方面是否比股骨近端抗旋髓内钉-II(PFNA-II)更易于学习。
这是一项前瞻性随机研究,纳入了2011年1月至2017年2月间由初级骨科创伤外科医生采用GN-3固定和PFNA-II治疗的350例患者。我们比较了髓内钉定位、并发症发生率、手术时间和透视时间、输血量、活动时间、住院时间、骨折愈合情况、匹配度、死亡率及术后结果。最小随访时间为12个月(平均27.2个月;范围12 - 42个月)。
GN-3组的恢复率显著高于PFNA-II组。与PFNA-II组相比,GN-3组在骨折间隙方面更具优势,而两组在手术时间、透视时间、输血量、活动时间、住院时间、Harris髋关节评分、再次手术、死亡率等方面无显著差异。GN-3组有5例出现股骨颈穿出,而PFNA-II组仅有2例,两组有显著差异。GN-3组的匹配面积比PFNA-II组更符合亚洲人群股骨情况。
PFNA-II和GN-3内固定都是初级骨科创伤外科医生治疗股骨转子间骨折的有效方法。但我们的研究显示GN-3组在恢复率方面优于PFNA-II组。使用GN-3治疗的患者穿出率较高,尤其是对于那些存在骨缺损或严重骨质疏松的患者。
这项工作的结果有可能提高初级外科医生对老年股骨转子间骨折的认识,为髓内钉的选择和比较提供理论依据。这样的指导将实现更好的愈合、更少的并发症,并最终改善治疗结果。