1Senior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, Rama Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, U.P.
2Professor, Department of Orthopedics, Rama Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, U.P.
*Corresponding author: -Dr. Avneet Singh Shishodia, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, Rama Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre, Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh India. Tel: +919013024367, E-mail: dr.avneet.ucms@gmail.com
Online published on 11 April, 2017.
The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of Proximal Femoral Nail and Dynamic Hip Screw in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.
This study was conducted on 30 cases of Intertrochanteric fractures of femur treated by PFN and DHS. Patients were operated on standard fracture table under image intensifier control.
The average age of the patient was 57.6 years. Most common mechanism of fracture was domestic fall. There were a total of 06A-1 fractures(20%), 19A-2 fractures(63.33%) and 05A-3 fractures(16.67%). The average blood loss was 167 ml and 250 ml in PFN and DHS group respectively. The average operating time for the patients treated with PFN was 67 min as compared to 78 min in patients treated with DHS. In the PFN group the limb length shortening was less as compared to DHS. The patients treated with PFN started early ambulation as they had better Parker and Palmer Score in the early period (at 12 weeks). In the long term both the implant had almost similar functional outcomes.
Both DHS and PFN achieves good functional outcome in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Choice of implant depends on the expertise of surgeon and fracture pattern, DHS is more preferable for stable fractures and PFN is more preferable for unstable fractures and old patients who require early mobilization.
Intertrochanteric fracture, Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS), Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN)
