Comparison between Proximal femoral nail and Proximal femoral nail antirotationin Peritrochanteric fracture of femur
Keywords:
Peritrochanteric, fracture, PFN, PFNA, HHSAbstract
Introduction: With increasing life expectancy of people, the incidence of peritrochanteric fractures has increased significantly. In the management of unstable peritrochanteric fractures intramedullary devices have proven advantage over extra-medullary ones. Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) is believed to be better in term of stability, rotational stability and lower cut out rate than proximal femoral nail (PFN), but is still controversial. This study was undertaken to compare the duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss and duration of C arm fluoroscopy exposure, position of implant, varus collapse and screw cutout, and functional outcome via Harris Hip Score (HHS) between the intramedullary devices.
Method: This was a prospective observational study conducted in patients with diagnosis peritrochanteric fractures treated either with PFN and PFNA in National Trauma Center and Civil Services Hospital from 1st May 2018 to 30th November 2019. Out of 48 patients, 24 in each group were included who met the inclusion criteria. Both the groups were followed at 1 month, 3 month and 6 month and were compared in term demographic variables, postoperative complication, and functional outcome via HHS.
Result: PFNA has better outcome than PFN in term of mean operative time (48.33±17.2 vs 74.16±21.9 minutes), mean blood loss (80.41±32.19 vs 138.75±45.90 millilitre) and duration of fluoroscopy exposure (48.33±17.29 vs 74.16±21.95 second) respectively. The postoperative varus collapse and screw cut out were higher in PFN than PFNA. The HHS at 6 month follow up of PFNA group had better result than PFN with P < 0.001 (86.12±5.16 vs 75.16±10.11 respectively).
Conclusion: PFNA is better in reducing operative time, blood loss and duration of fluoroscopy exposure. Post-operative complication is comparable but the functional outcome at 6 month follow up of PFNA is better than PFN.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Tufan Singh Kathayat , Poojan K. Rokaya, Mangal Rawal, Subash Gurung, Deepak Dutta, Srikrishna Giri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author(s) retain the copyright and the full publishing right without restriction under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) which allows readers to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, provided the work is properly attributed. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Author(s) grant the non-exclusive publishing right to the Journal of Karnali Academy of Health Sciences (JKAHS). The publishing rights include the rights to publish, reproduce, distribute, include in indexes or search databases or other media in print or online. The JKAHS may require revisions to the manuscript before acceptance for publication or may choose not to publish it based on the judgement of the editors. Further, JKAHS might retract, withdraw, or publish a correction or other notice after publication, if such publication would be inconsistent with the good publication practices and associated guidelines set forth by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) (https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).
More information about the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License can be found in the webpage of Creative Commons (CC) by following the link provided below: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/