Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag; Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb; Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny

doi:doi:10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag, Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb, Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny

Published in Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (Volume 7, Issue 1)

Received: 22 July 2021 Accepted: 6 January 2022 Published: 9 March 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Background: In the last few decades the rate of peritrochanteric fractures has increased because of increased rate of high velocity trauma accident and bone rarefaction due to osteoporosis in old age. DHS and PFN are the gold standard treatments used in treatment of these fractures. Nineteen studies were identified for analysis from 2007 to 2017 that meet our points of comparison. Aim of the work: Assessing of efficacy and complications of treatmeant of preitrochantric fracture by DHS versus PFN. Materials and methods: Outcomes from included trials will be combined using the systematic review manger software and manually screened for eligibility to be included. PRISMA flowchart will be produced based on the search results and the inclusion /exclusion criteria. After pooling of the collected data from the desired search studies, the relative risk of each of intended outcome measures of interest will be calculated and compared between each of the two main methods of peritrochanteric bone fixation treatment to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Evidence of publication bias will be sought using the funnel plot method. Results: PFN is better for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures as it has less complications and better efficacy than DHS. Conclusion: The present study supports the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures with PFN, as it has less failure of fixation, decreased wound infection, less duration of surgery and less non-union complication than DHS.

Published in	Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (Volume 7, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11
Page(s)	1-6
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Dynamic Hip Screw, Proximal Femoral Nail, Peritrochantric Fracture

References

[1]	Gupta SV and Valisetti VS. Comparative study between dynamic hip screw vs proximal femoral nailing in inter-trochanteric fractures of the femur in adults. International journal of orthopedic science. 2015; 1: 07-11.
[2]	Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT. Fixation of inter-trochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume. 1991 Mar; 73 (2): 330-4.
[3]	Maeda Y, Sugano N, Saito M, Yonenobu K. Comparison of femoral morphology and bone mineral density between femoral neck fractures and trochanteric fractures. Clinical Orthopedics Related Research. 2011; 469: 884-889.
[4]	Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH. Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. Instructional course lectures. 2004; 86: 398–410.
[5]	Gundle R, Gargan MF, Simpson AH. How to minimize failures of fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Injury. 1995; 26: 611–614.
[6]	Harrington P, Nihal A, Singhania AK, Howell FR. Intramedullary hip screw versus sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. Injury. 2002; 33: 23–28.
[7]	Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD. Intertrochanteric fractures. In: Heckman JD. Bucholz Rw (Eds). Rockwood, Greens Fractures in Adults. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. P 635–1663.
[8]	Bess RJ, Jolly SA. Comparison of compression hip screw and GammaTM nail for treatment of peritrochanteric fractures. Journal of southern Orthopaedic Association. 1997; 6 (3): 173-179.
[9]	Hoffman CW, Lynskey TG. Intertrochanteric fractures of the femur: a randomized prospective comparison of the GammaTMnail and the Ambi hip screw. ANZ journal of Surgey. 1996; 66: 151-155.
[10]	Watanabe Y, Minami G, Takeshita H, Fujii T, Takai S, Hirasawa Y. Migration of the lag screw within the femoral head: Acomparison of the intramedullary hip screw and the GammaTM Asia-Pacific Nail. Journal of Orthopedic Trauma. 2002; 16: 104-7.
[11]	Parker MJ, Pryor GA. Gamma TM versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fractures: meta-analysis of 10 randomized trials. 1996; 20: 163-8.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag, Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb, Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny. (2022). Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures. Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, 7(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag; Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb; Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny. Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures. Biomed. Stat. Inform. 2022, 7(1), 1-6. doi: 10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag, Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb, Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny. Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures. Biomed Stat Inform. 2022;7(1):1-6. doi: 10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11,
  author = {Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag and Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb and Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny},
  title = {Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures},
  journal = {Biomedical Statistics and Informatics},
  volume = {7},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-6},
  doi = {10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bsi.20220701.11},
  abstract = {Background: In the last few decades the rate of peritrochanteric fractures has increased because of increased rate of high velocity trauma accident and bone rarefaction due to osteoporosis in old age. DHS and PFN are the gold standard treatments used in treatment of these fractures. Nineteen studies were identified for analysis from 2007 to 2017 that meet our points of comparison. Aim of the work: Assessing of efficacy and complications of treatmeant of preitrochantric fracture by DHS versus PFN. Materials and methods: Outcomes from included trials will be combined using the systematic review manger software and manually screened for eligibility to be included. PRISMA flowchart will be produced based on the search results and the inclusion /exclusion criteria. After pooling of the collected data from the desired search studies, the relative risk of each of intended outcome measures of interest will be calculated and compared between each of the two main methods of peritrochanteric bone fixation treatment to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Evidence of publication bias will be sought using the funnel plot method. Results: PFN is better for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures as it has less complications and better efficacy than DHS. Conclusion: The present study supports the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures with PFN, as it has less failure of fixation, decreased wound infection, less duration of surgery and less non-union complication than DHS.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures
AU  - Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag
AU  - Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb
AU  - Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny
Y1  - 2022/03/09
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11
T2  - Biomedical Statistics and Informatics
JF  - Biomedical Statistics and Informatics
JO  - Biomedical Statistics and Informatics
SP  - 1
EP  - 6
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8728
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11
AB  - Background: In the last few decades the rate of peritrochanteric fractures has increased because of increased rate of high velocity trauma accident and bone rarefaction due to osteoporosis in old age. DHS and PFN are the gold standard treatments used in treatment of these fractures. Nineteen studies were identified for analysis from 2007 to 2017 that meet our points of comparison. Aim of the work: Assessing of efficacy and complications of treatmeant of preitrochantric fracture by DHS versus PFN. Materials and methods: Outcomes from included trials will be combined using the systematic review manger software and manually screened for eligibility to be included. PRISMA flowchart will be produced based on the search results and the inclusion /exclusion criteria. After pooling of the collected data from the desired search studies, the relative risk of each of intended outcome measures of interest will be calculated and compared between each of the two main methods of peritrochanteric bone fixation treatment to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Evidence of publication bias will be sought using the funnel plot method. Results: PFN is better for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures as it has less complications and better efficacy than DHS. Conclusion: The present study supports the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures with PFN, as it has less failure of fixation, decreased wound infection, less duration of surgery and less non-union complication than DHS.
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine-Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine-Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine-Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag, Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb, Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny. (2022). Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures. Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, 7(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag; Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb; Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny. Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures. Biomed. Stat. Inform. 2022, 7(1), 1-6. doi: 10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag, Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb, Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny. Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures. Biomed Stat Inform. 2022;7(1):1-6. doi: 10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11,
  author = {Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag and Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb and Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny},
  title = {Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures},
  journal = {Biomedical Statistics and Informatics},
  volume = {7},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-6},
  doi = {10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bsi.20220701.11},
  abstract = {Background: In the last few decades the rate of peritrochanteric fractures has increased because of increased rate of high velocity trauma accident and bone rarefaction due to osteoporosis in old age. DHS and PFN are the gold standard treatments used in treatment of these fractures. Nineteen studies were identified for analysis from 2007 to 2017 that meet our points of comparison. Aim of the work: Assessing of efficacy and complications of treatmeant of preitrochantric fracture by DHS versus PFN. Materials and methods: Outcomes from included trials will be combined using the systematic review manger software and manually screened for eligibility to be included. PRISMA flowchart will be produced based on the search results and the inclusion /exclusion criteria. After pooling of the collected data from the desired search studies, the relative risk of each of intended outcome measures of interest will be calculated and compared between each of the two main methods of peritrochanteric bone fixation treatment to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Evidence of publication bias will be sought using the funnel plot method. Results: PFN is better for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures as it has less complications and better efficacy than DHS. Conclusion: The present study supports the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures with PFN, as it has less failure of fixation, decreased wound infection, less duration of surgery and less non-union complication than DHS.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Extramedullary Versus Intramedullary Bone Fixation Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fractures
AU  - Osama Mohamed El Sayed Farag
AU  - Ahmed Mohamed Mohasseb
AU  - Ahmed Mohy Eldin Mohamed Mohamed Hefny
Y1  - 2022/03/09
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11
T2  - Biomedical Statistics and Informatics
JF  - Biomedical Statistics and Informatics
JO  - Biomedical Statistics and Informatics
SP  - 1
EP  - 6
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8728
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bsi.20220701.11
AB  - Background: In the last few decades the rate of peritrochanteric fractures has increased because of increased rate of high velocity trauma accident and bone rarefaction due to osteoporosis in old age. DHS and PFN are the gold standard treatments used in treatment of these fractures. Nineteen studies were identified for analysis from 2007 to 2017 that meet our points of comparison. Aim of the work: Assessing of efficacy and complications of treatmeant of preitrochantric fracture by DHS versus PFN. Materials and methods: Outcomes from included trials will be combined using the systematic review manger software and manually screened for eligibility to be included. PRISMA flowchart will be produced based on the search results and the inclusion /exclusion criteria. After pooling of the collected data from the desired search studies, the relative risk of each of intended outcome measures of interest will be calculated and compared between each of the two main methods of peritrochanteric bone fixation treatment to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Evidence of publication bias will be sought using the funnel plot method. Results: PFN is better for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures as it has less complications and better efficacy than DHS. Conclusion: The present study supports the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures with PFN, as it has less failure of fixation, decreased wound infection, less duration of surgery and less non-union complication than DHS.
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download