Annals of African medicine · 2025
A Randomized Trial Comparing the Outcome of Proximal Femoral Nailing and Proximal Femoral Nailing Antirotation 2 for Unstable Intertrochanteric Femur Fracture.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Prabhat Vinay, Jingua Thanchuingam, Gupta Govind Kumar, Topno Rohit, Kundu Sabyasachi, Guria Abhishek
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Proximal Femoral Nailing (PFN) and Proximal Femoral Nailing Anti-rotation (PFNA 2) are both intra-medullary implants having 6 degrees of proximal valgus angulation. The helical blade compact the cancellous bone in femoral head when it is driven inside.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is to compare radiological and functional outcome and superiority over other in management of unstable intertrochanteric fracture by PFN and PFNA 2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted from October 2021 to September 2022 which included 76 patients of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur.
RESULTS: In PFN group, Harris hip score was Excellent in 23 cases (60.52%), Good in 12 cases (31.57%), Fair in 2 cases (5.26%) and poor in1 case (2.63%). In PFNA 2 group, Harris hip score was excellent in 24cases (63.15%), Good in13 cases (34.21 %), Fair in 1 case (2.63%) and Poor in none of the cases.
CONCLUSION: PFNA 2 significantly reduces the operative time and blood loss compared to PFN. However Both PFN and PFNA 2 implants offers no statistically significant advantages over each other in terms of fracture unions, functional and radiological outcomes, post-operative complications and recovery outcomes.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is to compare radiological and functional outcome and superiority over other in management of unstable intertrochanteric fracture by PFN and PFNA 2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted from October 2021 to September 2022 which included 76 patients of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur.
RESULTS: In PFN group, Harris hip score was Excellent in 23 cases (60.52%), Good in 12 cases (31.57%), Fair in 2 cases (5.26%) and poor in1 case (2.63%). In PFNA 2 group, Harris hip score was excellent in 24cases (63.15%), Good in13 cases (34.21 %), Fair in 1 case (2.63%) and Poor in none of the cases.
CONCLUSION: PFNA 2 significantly reduces the operative time and blood loss compared to PFN. However Both PFN and PFNA 2 implants offers no statistically significant advantages over each other in terms of fracture unions, functional and radiological outcomes, post-operative complications and recovery outcomes.