Comparison of intramedullary fixation and extramedullary fixation for intertrochanteric fractures

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.53.016

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The intertrochanteric fracture is often treated with early internal fixation. As the modern medicine and internal fixation device develop, a variety of methods emerge to restore intertrochanteric fractures. However, the type of internal fixation and choice of internal fixators remain controversial.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare clinical prognosis of intertrochanteric fracture after intramedullary fixation and extramedullary fixation.
METHODS: A total of 146 patients with intertrochanteric fractures were recruited from Anhui Province Xuancheng Central Hospital between July 2009 and July 2013, and were divided into three groups according the types of internal fixation: locking compression plate (n=31), dynamic hip screw (n=66) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (n=49). The locking compression plate and dynamic hip screw belong to extramedullary fixation system, while proximal femoral nail anti-rotation was intramedullary fixation system. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of the incision, and clinical curative effect were observed and compared among three groups, to explore the influence of internal fixation type on the prognosis of intertrochanteric fracture.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The involved patients were followed up for 4-36 months. Compared with locking compression plate and dynamic hip screw groups, the operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly reduced in the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation group (P < 0.05); the locking compression plate group had significantly shorter operation time than the dynamic hip screw group (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rate of the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation group (94%) was significantly higher than that in the locking compression plate group (81%) and dynamic hip screw group (83%) (P < 0.05). Experimental findings indicate that, both intramedullary fixation and extramedullary fixation can achieve good effect in restoring intertrochanteric fractures, and intramedullary fixation is better than extramedullary fixation in the operation time, blood loss and internal fixation efficacy.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: femur, fractures, internal fixators, follow-up studies

CLC Number:

R318

Bai Rui-jun, Zhang Jun-xiang. Comparison of intramedullary fixation and extramedullary fixation for intertrochanteric fractures[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(53): 8612-8616.

Figures/Tables 2

References

[1] 宁兆刚, 于建华, 张铁良. DHS治疗老年股骨转子间骨折[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2006,21(3):225-226.
[2] 王鹏建, 李海峰, 阮狄克, 等.股骨粗隆间骨折内固定术后并发症原因分析[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2010,25(1):27-29.
[3] Mullerler ME, Nazarian S. The comprehensive classification of fractures of the long bones. Newyork :Springer-Verlag, 1990:118.
[4] 朱江涛, 卫小春.股骨粗隆间骨折分型[J].实用骨科杂志, 2007, 13(7):410-413.
[5] Haidukewych GJ, Israel TA. Reverse obliquity fractures ofthe intertrochanteric region of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(5):643-650.
[6] Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures:Treatment by mold arthroplasty.An end-result studyusing a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(4):737-755.
[7] Evans EM. Trochantericfractures:Areviewof 110 cases treated byhail-platefixation. J BonejointSurg (Br). 1951;33(2): 192-194.
[8] Li YJ, Li ZB, Yu WH, et al. Case-control study on dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation for the treatment of unstableintertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2013; 26(12):977-980.
[9] 王申宇, 徐南伟, 黄勇, 等.防旋型股骨近端髓内钉与动力髋螺钉治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J].实用临床医药杂志, 2014, 18(16):67-69.
[10] 陈源. DHS、PFNA、锁定加压钢板治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J].现代中西医结合杂志, 2012,22(25):2272-2273.
[11] 施慧鹏.复杂不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折多种固定方式的生物力学研究[D].苏州大学,2013.
[12] Kyle RF, Wright TM, Burstein AH. Biomechanical analysis of the sliding characteristics of compression hip screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:1308-1314.
[13] Cill JB,Jensen L,Chin PC, et al. Intenrochanteric hipfracturestreated withthe trochanteric fixation nail and sliding hip screw. J surg Orthop Adv. 2007;16(2):62-66.
[14] 周业松, 张道前, 邵卫东, 等.动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折失败原因分析及对策[J].中国全科医学, 2013,13(8):2738-2740.
[15] 罗永忠, 李佩佳, 赵汉平, 等.人工关节置换治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折[J].中国矫形外科杂志, 2005,13(20):1542-1544.
[16] Yuan X, Yao Q, Ni J, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fracture in elders: A meta-analysis. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2014; 94(11):836-839.
[17] Wang YG, Chen M, Hu JK, et al. Comparison of three fixations for treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2013;26(8):651-655.
[18] Zhang PX, Xue F, An S, et al. Clinical analysis of obvious and hidden blood loss in inter-trochanter fracture patients treated with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and dynamic hip screw. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2012;44(6):891-894.
[19] Huang CG, Ye JJ. Comparison of three methods for the treatment of aged femoral intertrochanteric fracture. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2012;25(7):549-553.
[20] 侯国进, 周方, 张志山, 等.不同内固定方式治疗老年股骨粗隆问骨折围手术期的失血特点分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2013, 45(5):738-741.
[21] Zeng C, Wang YR, Wei J, et al. Treatment of trochanteric fractures with proximal femoral nail antirotation or dynamic hip screw systems: A meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2012;40(3): 839-851.