Percutaneous compression plating (PCCP) versus the dynamic hip screw for pertrochanteric hip fractures: preliminary results

Brandt, S E; Lefever, Stefanie; Janzing, H; Broos, Paul; Pilot, Peter; Houben, Bert

doi:10.1016/s0020-1383(02)00080-3

Cited by 65 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The characteristics of the patients' population studied are comparable with those of other studies presented in the literature [6][7][8][9]11] in terms of age and sex. The fractures, defined by the inclusion criteria, included both A1 and A2 types and there were no differences in distribution between the groups even when split according to age or sex.…”

Section: Patients' Population Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Operation times are in line with those published by other authors. The operative time in the literature varies from 67 min [11] to 46 min [6]. The average is similar for both groups in this study.…”

Section: Surgery Timesmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…New devices are being developed for the osteosynthesis of these fractures and one of these is the PCCP (PerCutaneous Compression Plate; Orthofix SRL, Italy) [6][7][8][9][10][11]. This device is indicated for the treatment of pertrochanteric and basicervical fractures with intact lateral walls (AO types 31A1,31A2,B2.1) [12] and is inserted by a minimally invasive technique which minimizes soft tissue damage and blood loss, retains the fracture haematoma and avoids excessive periosteal stripping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Percutaneous compression plating versus gamma nail for the treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures

Giancola¹,

Antonini²,

Rose³

et al. 2008

Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to compare percutaneous compression plating (PCCP) device with standard gamma nail (GN). A sample was prospectively followed and compared to a historical cohort: 82 intertrochanteric hip fractures in 81 patients treated with PCCP in 2004 versus 51 hip fractures treated with GN in 2003 (AO type 31A1, 31 A2). The main outcome measures were: surgery times, blood loss (Hb serum level and transfusions), complication, costs, for a 1-year follow-up. The minimally invasive PCCP technique resulted in a lower blood loss and consequently lower transfusion need (statistically significant), fewer implant-related complications and comparable surgery times. Overall surgical costs were lower for a comparable outcome in terms of healing and surgical time.

show abstract

Section: Patients' Population Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Surgery Timesmentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Percutaneous compression plating versus gamma nail for the treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures

Giancola¹,

Antonini²,

Rose³

et al. 2008

Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) is a new implant for the minimally invasive treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures [5]. The PCCP seems to be similar to the DHS in relation to bone and stability, but has significant advantages for blood loss, soft tissue healing, and operation time [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dynamic hip screw (DHS) has been the standard type of fixation for intertrochanteric fractures [3,20]. In the attempt to find less invasive techniques to simplify surgery and minimise complications by reducing surgical time and blood loss [1], some authors used custom made implants [11] or new devices which require the purchase of additional armamentarium by the hospital [5]. We used a case-control study design to ascertain the shortterm safety and effectiveness of a standardised DHS device inserted using a minimally invasive technique compared with the same implant inserted in a traditional fashion to manage AO Classification 31-A1.1 and 31-A1.2 & 31-A2.1 and 31-A2.2 fractures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive dynamic hip screw for fixation of hip fractures

Garau

Walley

et al. 2008

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared a minimally invasive surgical technique to the conventional (open approach) surgical technique used in fixation of hip fractures with the dynamic hip screw (DHS) device. Using a case-control design (44 cases and 44 controls), we tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two techniques in the following outcome measures: duration of surgery, time to mobilisation and weight bearing postoperatively, length of hospital stay, mean difference of pre-and postoperative haemoglobin levels, position of the lag screw of the DHS device in the femoral head, and the tip-apex distance. The minimally invasive DHS technique had significantly shorter duration of surgery and length of hospital stay. There was also less blood loss in the minimally invasive DHS technique. The minimally invasive DHS technique produces better outcome measures in the operating time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss compared to the conventional approach while maintaining equal fixation stability.Résumé Ce travail a pour but de comparer les techniques de fixation de fractures de la hanche par voie mini-invasive ou par voie d'abord conventionnelle avec utilisation de matériel de type DHS. Nous avons pour cette étude regroupé les patients en deux groupes, 44 cas par voie mini-invasive et 44 cas contrôle. Nous avons voulu tester l'hypothèse suivante: existe-t-il une différence entre ces deux techniques, sur la durée d'intervention, de reprise de l'appui post-opératoire; de durée moyenne de séjour des pertes sanguines notamment et enfin, en ce qui concerne la position de la vis céphalique dans la tête fémorale et sa distance par rapport à l'interligne. La technique mini-invasive entraîne de façon significative un temps chirurgical diminué et une diminution de la durée moyenne de séjour. Ceci est également vrai pour les pertes sanguines. Cette technique est pour nous supérieure en ce qui concerne ces items si on la compare à l'abord de type conventionnel en sachant que les problèmes de stabilité du matériel sont identiques quelle que soit la technique utilisée.

show abstract

Extramedullary fixation implants and external fixators for extracapsular hip fractures

Parker

Handoll

2002

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Percutaneous compression plating (PCCP) versus the dynamic hip screw for pertrochanteric hip fractures: preliminary results

Cited by 65 publications

References 21 publications

Percutaneous compression plating versus gamma nail for the treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures

Percutaneous compression plating versus gamma nail for the treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures

Minimally invasive dynamic hip screw for fixation of hip fractures

Extramedullary fixation implants and external fixators for extracapsular hip fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About