Proximal Femoral Nail vs. Dynamic Hip Screw in Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

Background The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of proximal femoral nail (PFN) and dynamic hip screw (DHS) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Material/Methods Relevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing the effects of PFN and DHS were searched for following the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Six eligible studies involving 669 fractures were included. Their methodological quality was assessed and data were extracted independently for meta-analysis. Results The results showed that the PFN group had significantly less operative time (WMD: −21.15, 95% CI: −34.91 – −7.39, P=0.003), intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −139.81, 95% CI: −210.39 – −69.22, P=0.0001), and length of incision (WMD: −6.97, 95% CI: −9.19 – −4.74, P<0.00001) than the DHS group. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups regarding postoperative infection rate, lag screw cut-out rate, or reoperation rate. Conclusions The current evidence indicates that PFN may be a better choice than DHS in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.

[1]  Pankaj Pankaj,et al.  The importance of lag screw position for the stabilization of trochanteric fractures with a sliding hip screw: A subject‐specific finite element study , 2013, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[2]  N. Shazar,et al.  Radiological evaluation of intertrochanteric fracture fixation by the proximal femoral nail. , 2012, Injury.

[3]  F. B. dos Reis,et al.  Failure of fixation of trochanteric femur fractures: Clinical recommendations for avoiding Z-effect and reverse Z-effect type complications , 2011, Patient safety in surgery.

[4]  Li-ping Li,et al.  [Comparison of proximal femoral nail and dynamic hip screw for treating intertrochanteric fractures]. , 2009, Zhongguo gu shang = China journal of orthopaedics and traumatology.

[5]  P. Hyvönen,et al.  Functional comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail in trochanteric hip fractures: a matched-pair study of 268 patients , 2009, International Orthopaedics.

[6]  Fan Yongqian.  The Clinical Study of the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures in the Elderly with DHS,Gamma nail and PFN , 2007 .

[7]  E. Lambiris,et al.  A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures , 2005, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[8]  O. Michelsson,et al.  Pertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail. A randomised study comparing post-operative rehabilitation. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  K. Sugiyama,et al.  Comminuted Fractures of the Radial Head , 2005 .

[10]  C. van der Werken,et al.  DHS osteosynthesis for stable pertrochanteric femur fractures with a two-hole side plate. , 2004, Injury.

[11]  E W Steyerberg,et al.  Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[12]  H. Gang.  Dynamic hip screws (DHS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of femur in elderly patients , 2004 .

[13]  W. Grechenig,et al.  The proximal femoral nail (PFN) - a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: A prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months , 2003, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[14]  A. Rüter,et al.  [Stabilisation of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures. Dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate vs. proximal femur nail (PFN)]. , 2003, Der Unfallchirurg.

[15]  P. Hoffmeyer,et al.  Pertrochanteric Fractures: Is There an Advantage to an Intramedullary Nail?: A Randomized, Prospective Study of 206 Patients Comparing the Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nail , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[16]  C. van der Werken,et al.  The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. , 1999, Injury.

[17]  K. Weise,et al.  Belastbarkeit von Osteosynthesen bei instabilen per- und subtrochanteren Femurfrakturen: Experimentelle Untersuchungen mit PFN, Gamma-Nagel, DHS/Trochanterstabilisierungsplatte, 95°-Condylenplatte und UFN/Spiralklinge , 1998 .

[18]  M. Baumgaertner,et al.  Awareness of tip-apex distance reduces failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[19]  M. Parker,et al.  Gamma versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fractures , 1996, International Orthopaedics.

[20]  S. Nafie,et al.  Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. , 1995, Injury.

[21]  J. Webb,et al.  A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[22]  A. Patel,et al.  Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. , 1991, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[23]  S. Cummings,et al.  The future of hip fractures in the United States. Numbers, costs, and potential effects of postmenopausal estrogen. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.