These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Stabilisation of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures. Dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate vs. proximal femur nail (PFN)].
    Author: Nuber S, Schönweiss T, Rüter A.
    Journal: Unfallchirurg; 2003 Jan; 106(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 12552392.
    Abstract:
    The dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate (TSP) as the extramedullary power transmission system and the proximal femur nail (PFN) as the means of intramedullary stabilisation are both standard in the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures in the case of old people. A total of 129 patients (average age: 81,5 years) with 31 A2.2 and A2.3 as well as per-/subtrochanteric femoral fractures were treated by means of osteosynthesis with DHS and TSP (n=64) or with PFN (n=65),and the results plotted in a retro-/prospective study. At low complication rates, the radiological operation results are equally good. 6 revisions were necessary in the case of the DHS with TSP and 4 in the case of PFN. A significantly shorter operation time (44.3 vs. 57.3 min) and a considerably shorter in-patient stay (18.6 vs. 21.3 days) were common with PFN. The application of full-weightbearing immediately after the operation was possible for 97% of the PFN patients and 88% of the DHS patients. In a follow-up 6 months after the operation, the PFN patients displayed a significantly lower pain intensity in the operated leg at the same score for ambulation and the same subjective degree of satisfaction. Unstable pertrochanteric and per-/subtrochanteric femoral comminuted fractures can be treated just as well with PFN as with DHS and TSP. Our study results,however, lead us to recommend treatment with PFN.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]