Pandor Ismail, Sharma Abhishek, Patil Paresh, Shaikh Alim, Jagdale Anshuraj, Sankhala Jay
Department of Orthopaedic, Krishna Vishwa Vidhyapeeth, Karad, Maharashtra, India.
Department of Orthopaedic, Asian Institute of Medical sciences, Dombivli, Maharashtra.
J Orthop Case Rep. 2025 Aug;15(8):312-317. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i08.5980.
Intertrochanteric femur fractures are among the most common injuries in the elderly population and represent a major public health issue. Treatment aims to achieve stable fixation that allows early mobilization and minimizes complications. The choice of implant plays a critical role in clinical outcomes, particularly in unstable fracture patterns.
The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative parameters, functional outcomes, union times, and complications between proximal femoral nail anti-rotation-II (PFNA-II) and trochanteric femur nail (TFN) in patients with unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures.
A prospective, randomized, and comparative study was conducted in a tertiary care center over a period of 18 months. One hundred patients aged 50-85 years with Boyd and Griffin type III fractures were divided into two groups. Group A (n = 50) was treated using TFN, while Group B (n = 50) received PFNA-II. Surgical techniques, post-operative care, and rehabilitation protocols were standardized. Data on operative time, intraoperative blood loss, union duration, Harris Hip scores (HHS), and complications were collected and statistically analyzed.
The PFNA-II group had shorter operative times (Mean 65.5 min. vs. 71.5 min) and less blood loss (253 ± 36.4 mL vs. 275 ± 35.1 mL) than the TFN group. Average union time was similar between groups. Mean HHS at 6 months was higher in the PFNA-II group (67.83 ± 8.05) than the TFN group (71.72 ± 7.45), though the difference was not statistically significant. PFNA-II also showed a lower incidence of implant-related complications.
PFNA-II offers certain intraoperative advantages and trends toward better functional outcomes and fewer complications, but the differences with TFN were not statistically significant. Both implants are viable for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
股骨粗隆间骨折是老年人群中最常见的损伤之一,是一个重大的公共卫生问题。治疗的目标是实现稳定的固定,以便早期活动并将并发症降至最低。植入物的选择对临床结果起着关键作用,尤其是在不稳定骨折类型中。
本研究的目的是比较不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折患者使用股骨近端抗旋髓内钉-II(PFNA-II)和股骨粗隆髓内钉(TFN)的术中参数、功能结果、愈合时间和并发症。
在一家三级医疗中心进行了一项为期18个月的前瞻性、随机对照研究。100例年龄在50-85岁的博伊德和格里芬III型骨折患者被分为两组。A组(n = 50)采用TFN治疗,而B组(n = 50)接受PFNA-II治疗。手术技术、术后护理和康复方案均标准化。收集手术时间、术中出血量、愈合时间、Harris髋关节评分(HHS)和并发症的数据并进行统计分析。
PFNA-II组的手术时间比TFN组短(平均65.5分钟对71.5分钟),失血量也更少(253±36.4毫升对275±35.1毫升)。两组的平均愈合时间相似。PFNA-II组6个月时的平均HHS(67.83±8.05)高于TFN组(71.72±7.45),尽管差异无统计学意义。PFNA-II还显示出与植入物相关并发症发生率较低。
PFNA-II具有一定的术中优势,并且在功能结果和并发症方面有更好的趋势,但与TFN的差异无统计学意义。两种植入物都可用于治疗不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折。