A35 Comparative study of trochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail-G3 and Dynamic Hip Screw. Results and clinical outcome

Goulidakis, V.; Theocharakis, S.; Diakatos, A.; Gourovanidis, D.; Drakoulakis, E.; Pastroudis, Alexandros

doi:10.1016/s0020-1383(11)70052-3

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that functional recovery in the first 6 months after surgery is significantly poorer after DHS treatment is important, because it is widely known that elderly patients require faster recovery. Similar findings have been reported by Goulidakis et al [22] and Calderón et al [23] . Conversely, Eschler et al [24] found that patients treated with an extramedullary device fared subjectively better.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Prospective randomised control study of role of proximal femur nail and dynamic hip screw and plate in unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur in elderly

Pr¹,

Hg²,

Pr³

et al. 2018

Int. J. Orthop. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The conservative treatment of intertrochanteric (IT) fracture has high complication rate. The operative management of intertrochanteric fractures are sucussful. Commonly used implants for fixation of IT fractures are dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femur nail (PFN). Debate still continues regarding the optimal implant for IT fractures. We aim to compare the results of DHS and PFN in the treatment of IT fractures at our institution. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective randomized comparative study of 40 patients of IT fractures treated surgically. Patients were divided equally into 2 groups of 20 each, with patients in group-A treated with DHS and those in group-B PFN. The functional outcome was evaluated based on Harris Hip Score (HHS). The radiographic outcomes was based on non-union or mal-union, femoral head necrosis, cut-out, periimplant fracture. Results: The Harris Hip Score in the D.H.S group at 1 month (Avg. 24.4) was less than that of the P.F.N group (Avg. 33), p<0.05. During follow-up period, Group PFNA improved from 33± 2.99 to 87.62 ± 7.53, and Group DHS improved from 24.4 ± 2.98 to 74.44 ± 7.95. Patients in PFN group had fewer complications as compared to those in DHS group and the difference was statistically significant. DISCUSSION: the most important result is that patients treated with the PFN technique exhibited functional improvement as early as 6 months after surgery, unlike DHS-treated patients. In practice, this means that PFN treatment is associated with faster improvement in quality of life than the DHS technique. Conclusion: PFN is better than DHS, as indicated by significantly less total complications, less reoperation rate, and higher postoperative HHS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%