Clinical and Radiologic Outcome of Intertrochanteric Fracture Treatment Using TFNA (Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced)

Lee, Hyeon Jun; Choi, Hyun Bai; Kim, Ba Rom; Jo, Seung Hwan; Lee, Sang

doi:10.12671/jkfs.2021.34.3.105

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To assess the fixation strength of the lag screw, we also measured the advancement distance (mm) and sliding distance (mm) [23,24]. For the advancement distance, we measured the distance from the tip of the lag screw along the line drawn from the center axis to where it met the femoral head.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GS Hip Nail versus Affixus Hip Fracture Nail for the Intramedullary Nailing of Intertrochanteric Fractures

Kwon,

Lee,

Lee

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intertrochanteric fractures are a global health concern, especially in aging populations like the Republic of Korea. Surgical treatments like intramedullary nailing are preferred for their benefit. Various hip nails are used worldwide, each with unique features and challenges. This study aims to compare the GS hip nail with the Affixus hip fracture nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Material and Methods: This retrospective study, conducted at a single center, included 179 patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for intertrochanteric fractures using the GS hip nail or the Affixus hip fracture nail. Excluding specific cases, 43 patients in the GS group and 46 in the Affixus group met the minimum 6-month follow-up criteria. Result: The GS group exhibited a significantly shorter mean operation time (43.26 min) compared to the Affixus group (51.11 min). Radiographically, both groups showed no significant differences in their reduction quality, tip, and apex distance (TAD), or Cleveland index in the immediate postoperative window. However, the GS group achieved a greater valgus reduction based on the contralateral femoral neck shaft angle (NSA). At 6 months post-operation, there were no significant differences in TAD or advancement and sliding distances. Complication rates were similar between the two groups, with no implant breakages. Clinical outcomes, as measured via mHHS and EQ-5D-5L, showed no significant differences. Despite a slightly higher implant cost, the GS group had a lower total hospital cost than the Affixus group, but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: This study highlights the efficiency of the GS hip nail in reducing the operation time compared to the Affixus hip fracture nail with comparable radiologic and clinical outcomes. Further research with long-term follow-up and larger patient studies are needed to fully assess its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes in hip fracture treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%