No abstract

No abstract

Background In the last few decades the rate of peritrochanteric fractures has increased because of increased rate of high velocity trauma accident and bone rarefaction due to osteoporosis in old age. DHS and PFN are the gold standard treatments used in treatment of these fractures. Nineteen studies were identified for analysis from 2007 to 2017 that meet our points of comparison. Aim of the Work Assessing of efficacy and complications of treatmeant of preitrochantric fracture by DHS versus PFN. Materials and Methods Outcomes from included trials will be combined using the systematic review manger software and manually screened for eligibility to be included. PRISMA flowchart will be produced based on the search results and the inclusion /exclusion criteria. After pooling of the collected data from the desired search studies, the relative risk of each of intended outcome measures of interest will be calculated and compared between each of the two main methods of peritrochanteric bone fixation treatment to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Evidence of publication bias will be sought using the funnel plot method. Results PFN is better for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures as it has less complications and better efficacy than DHS. Conclusion The present study supports the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures with PFN, as it has less failure of fixation, decreased wound infection, less duration of surgery and less non-union complication than DHS.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) can affect all three compartments of the knee, but epidemiological studies have shown that the predominant pattern is disease localized to the medial side of the knee, although a lot of studies had been done to compare different modalities of treatment, the gold standard treatment for AMOA is not yet well known and the decision of which procedure is best suited to an individual, or whether an individual would be prepared to undergo one type of surgery, but not another is a complex issue. Aim of the work:This study is a systematic review and metaanalysis of studies that include patients underwent medial UKA for treating isolated medial knee osteoarthritis, and to provide cumulative data about the efficacy and safety of Uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in treating isolated medial compartment knee osteoarthritis Patients and Methods: This review was done using standard methodology outlined in the Cochrane Handbook and reported the findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines, (PubMed, Cochrane library and Google Scholar) were searched for relative studies which studied the outcome of Preoperative status versus Post-operative sequel of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis patients by estimating Mean, Standard deviation (± SD) and range for parametric numerical data, while Median, Geometric Mean and Inter-quartile range (IQR) for non-parametric numerical data, Frequency and percentage of non-numerical data and their 95% confidence intervals for each study.Results: 10 studies studied the outcome of Pre-operative status versus Post-operative sequel of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis were obtained for final research, in these studies 2304 knees underwent UKA, we qualitatively assessed 1ry efficacy outcome by assessing prevalence of moderate to severe pain and functional knee score (ROMrange of motion) and qualitatively assessed 2ry safety outcome by measuring complications rate, revision surgery (Failure) rate and survival probability %. Conclusions:UKA is a solution that is adapted to the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis AMOA in old patients more than 60 years of age, this intervention provides the patient with excellent quality of life and satisfaction in more than 90% of the cases.