O'Brien P J, Meek R N, Blachut P A, Broekhuyse H M, Sabharwal S
Department of Orthopedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Hospital. BC.
Can J Surg. 1995 Dec;38(6):516-20.
To compare the efficacy of the gamma nail (GN) to the dynamic hip screw (DHS) in the management of intertrochanteric hip fractures.
Randomized, prospective clinical trial with a mean follow-up of 52 weeks (range from 11 to 82 weeks).
A university teaching hospital.
One hundred and one patients with 102 fractures: 49 fractures were treated with the DHS and 53 fractures were treated with the GN.
Fracture fixation with the DHS or the GN.
Comparison of duration of operation, blood loss, early and late complications, functional outcome and duration of hospital stay.
There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to intraoperative blood loss, days in hospital, time to union and eventual functional outcome. The length of the procedure and fluoroscopy time were longer for the GN group.
Both the GN and the DHS can be used effectively for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. In this study the DHS was associated with a lower risk of local complications and should still be considered to be the implant of choice for patients with intertrochanteric fractures.
比较伽马钉（GN）与动力髋螺钉（DHS）治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效。
随机、前瞻性临床试验，平均随访52周（11至82周）。
一所大学教学医院。
101例患者共102处骨折：49处骨折采用DHS治疗，53处骨折采用GN治疗。
采用DHS或GN进行骨折固定。
比较手术时间、失血量、早期和晚期并发症、功能结果及住院时间。
两组在术中失血量、住院天数、骨折愈合时间及最终功能结果方面无显著差异。GN组手术时间和透视时间更长。
GN和DHS均可有效用于治疗股骨转子间骨折。在本研究中，DHS发生局部并发症的风险较低，仍应被视为股骨转子间骨折患者的首选植入物。
