Department of Surgery, Haaglanden Medical Centre, P.O. Box 432, 2501 CK, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedics, Haaglanden Medical Centre, P.O. Box 432, 2501 CK, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Jul;142(7):1459-1467. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03824-0. Epub 2021 Feb 26.
Both the DHS and the PFNA are common and well-studied treatment options for stable trochanteric fractures. The aim of the current study was to compare the implant failure rates of these two implants in 31A1 type trochanteric femoral fractures.
A single-centre observational cohort study was conducted in the Hip Fracture Unit of a multicentre level 1 trauma teaching hospital between December 2016 and October 2018. Patients with an AO/OTA type 31A1 fracture were included. Pathological fractures, bilateral fractures, high-energy traumas and patients younger than 18 years of age were excluded. Surgery was performed using either a DHS or PFNA. Both were used routinely for stable trochanteric fractures, and allocation was decided by the surgeon performing the operation. The primary outcome of this study was the implant failure rate in the first postoperative year. Secondary outcomes included the reoperation rate, functional recovery, pain and morphine use.
Data were available from 126 patients treated with a DHS (n = 32, 25.4%) or PFNA (n = 95, 74.6%). Minor differences were observed in the patient characteristics including the prevalence of cognitive impairment (18.8% vs 40.2%; P = 0.028), prefracture independence in activities of daily living (87.1% vs 67.4%; P = 0.034) and prefracture mobility (independently without aides: 61.3% vs 40.4%; P = 0.033). Fractures treated with a DHS showed 25% implant failures, compared to 1.1% for fractures treated with a PFNA (P = 0.004). No differences were observed in any of the secondary outcomes.
Significantly more implant failures were observed for the DHS compared the PFNA within 1 year after surgery. Despite the fact that this did not result in differences in revision surgery, we conclude that the PFNA, considering the minimal number of implant-related fractures is a viable implant for A1 type trochanteric fractures.
DHS 和 PFNA 都是稳定型转子间骨折的常用且研究充分的治疗选择。本研究旨在比较这两种植入物在 31A1 型转子间骨折中的植入物失败率。
这是一项在 2016 年 12 月至 2018 年 10 月于一家多中心 1 级创伤教学医院的髋关节骨折病房进行的单中心观察性队列研究。纳入了 AO/OTA 31A1 型骨折的患者。排除了病理性骨折、双侧骨折、高能创伤和 18 岁以下的患者。手术采用 DHS 或 PFNA 进行。两种方法均常规用于稳定型转子间骨折,手术医生决定具体术式。本研究的主要结局是术后 1 年内的植入物失败率。次要结局包括再手术率、功能恢复、疼痛和吗啡使用情况。
共纳入 126 例 DHS 治疗(n=32,25.4%)或 PFNA 治疗(n=95,74.6%)的患者。在患者特征方面存在一些较小差异,包括认知障碍的发生率(18.8%比 40.2%;P=0.028)、骨折前日常生活活动的独立性(87.1%比 67.4%;P=0.034)和骨折前的移动能力(独立无辅助:61.3%比 40.4%;P=0.033)。DHS 治疗的骨折中 25%发生植入物失败,而 PFNA 治疗的骨折中仅 1.1%发生植入物失败(P=0.004)。在任何次要结局方面均未观察到差异。
与 PFNA 相比,DHS 在术后 1 年内发生更多的植入物失败。尽管这并未导致翻修手术的差异,但我们的结论是,考虑到与植入物相关的骨折数量较少,PFNA 是 A1 型转子间骨折的一种可行植入物。