Thuppad Adarsh U, Rao Harsh Kirthi, Mendon Gaurav C, Manjunatha Santosha, Revankar Suraj M, Shetty Kaveesh P
Department of Orthopaedics, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
J Orthop Case Rep. 2025 Mar;15(3):244-249. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i03.5402.
The incidence of intertrochanteric (IT) fracture is rising because of increase in the survival of the elderly population with osteoporosis and also the increase in the number of motor vehicle accidents. The treatment of choice is normally surgical with internal fixation. The surgical options for these fractures commonly include fixation with dynamic hip screw (DHS) or cephalomedullary nailing. Due to its advantages over DHS, cephalomedullary nailing is the predominant procedure in many parts of the world. Various varieties of cephalomedullary nails are available. Short cephalomedullary nails are indicated for IT fractures not extending beyond lesser trochanter. There are limited studies on the comparison of short cephalomedullary nails for IT fracture. In this study, we are evaluating functional outcome, radiological union and complications of inter-trochanteric fractures of femur treated with three different short cephalomedullary nails: (1) Proximal femoral nail (PFN)-standard, (2) modified short PFN (MS-PFN) and (3) PFN-A2 of 240 mm.
Our study is a randomized control trial. Subjects are patients with IT fracture presenting to Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre. After obtaining informed and written consent, as per inclusion and exclusion criteria, subjects are randomized into three groups (simple randomization) and treated with standard PFN (240 mm length), MS-PFN (180 mm length), and PFN-A2 of length 240 mm as per randomisation. Duration of the surgery and total intraoperative blood loss is noted. Patients are followed up till 1-year post-operative period, in different intervals. Functional outcome using Harris hip score, fracture union, complications are assessed and compared. Considering the lost to follow-up, the final study size obtained is 75 (25 in each group).
In our study, the average age of the patients is 71.29 years with male predominance and right-side predominance. Majority of the fractures belong to Type 1 Group 2 and type 1 Group 4 of Evan's classification. The average operating time and average intraoperative blood loss is less in PFN-A2 group compared to PFN and MS-PFN groups. The fracture union time is earlier in PFN A2 group compared to PFN and MS-PFN group. Functional outcome is better in PFN-A2 group compared to PFN and MS-PFN groups. In PFN group and PFN A2 of 240 mm length group, there were significant patients with anterior thigh pain. Among 75 patients, 3 in PFN group, 2 in MS-PFN group, and 1 in PFN-A2 group had >1 cm of shortening. 2 patients in PFN group and 1 in MS-PFN group had complication of screw cut-out; 2 in PFN group and 2 in PFN-A2 group had surgical site infection; 1 in PFN group and 1 in PFN-A2 group had varus collapse; and 1 in PFN group and 2 in MS-PFN group had Z effect/reverse Z effect.
In our study, on comparing three short nails - PFN, MF-PFN, and PFN-A2, PFN-A2 is superior in terms of operating time, intraoperative blood loss, functional outcome and fracture union. MS-PFN is next to PFN-A2 in the above parameters. Hence, PFN-A2 is superior to MS-PFN and MS-PFN is superior to PFN. Moreover, to avoid anterior thigh pain, we recommend the use of shorter nails (180 mm).
由于骨质疏松的老年人口存活率增加以及机动车事故数量增多,股骨粗隆间骨折的发病率正在上升。通常的治疗选择是手术内固定。这些骨折的手术方式通常包括动力髋螺钉(DHS)固定或髓内钉固定。由于其相对于DHS的优势,髓内钉固定在世界许多地区是主要的手术方式。有各种不同类型的髓内钉可供选择。短髓内钉适用于未延伸至小转子以下的股骨粗隆间骨折。关于短髓内钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的比较研究有限。在本研究中,我们正在评估用三种不同的短髓内钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的功能结果、影像学愈合情况及并发症:(1)标准近端股骨钉(PFN),(2)改良短PFN(MS-PFN)和(3)240mm的PFN-A2。
我们的研究是一项随机对照试验。研究对象为前往斯利那加医学科学与研究中心就诊的股骨粗隆间骨折患者。在获得知情并书面同意后,根据纳入和排除标准,将研究对象随机分为三组(简单随机分组),并根据随机分组情况分别用标准PFN(长度240mm)、MS-PFN(长度180mm)和长度为240mm的PFN-A2进行治疗。记录手术时长和术中总失血量。对患者进行随访直至术后1年,随访间隔不同。使用Harris髋关节评分评估功能结果、骨折愈合情况及并发症,并进行比较。考虑到失访情况,最终纳入研究的患者数量为75例(每组25例)。
在我们的研究中,患者的平均年龄为71.29岁,男性居多,右侧居多。大多数骨折属于埃文斯分类中的1型2组和1型4组。与PFN组和MS-PFN组相比,PFN-A2组的平均手术时间和平均术中失血量更少。与PFN组和MS-PFN组相比,PFN-A2组的骨折愈合时间更早。与PFN组和MS-PFN组相比,PFN-A2组的功能结果更好。在PFN组和240mm长的PFN-A2组中,有相当数量的患者出现大腿前部疼痛。在75例患者中,PFN组有3例、MS-PFN组有2例、PFN-A2组有1例出现缩短>1cm。PFN组有2例、MS-PFN组有1例出现螺钉穿出并发症;PFN组有2例、PFN-A2组有2例出现手术部位感染;PFN组有1例、PFN-A2组有1例出现内翻塌陷;PFN组有1例、MS-PFN组有2例出现Z效应/反向Z效应。
在我们的研究中,比较三种短钉——PFN、MF-PFN和PFN-A2,PFN-A2在手术时间、术中失血量、功能结果和骨折愈合方面更具优势。MS-PFN在上述参数方面仅次于PFN-A2。因此,PFN-A2优于MS-PFN,MS-PFN优于PFN。此外,为避免大腿前部疼痛,我们建议使用较短的钉子(180mm)。