SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Tıp Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 4

Treatment outcomes of intertrochanteric femur fractures treated with DLT™ nail

DLT™ çivisi uygulanan intertrokanterik femur kırıklarının tedavi sonuçları

MEHMET ARICAN
Kadir İlker YILDIZ
Zekerya Okan KARADUMAN
Mehmet Şirin BULUT
Serkan ÖZKAN
Pages
495–500
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: DLT ™ nail is a safe and successful method because of low complication rates, and capability of detection.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Intramedullary nails frequently use in proximal femur fractures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, 49 patients with intertrochanteric fractures were evaluated clinical and radiological results treated with dyna locking trochanteric (DLT™) nail retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: DLT ™ nail is a safe and successful method because of low complication rates, and capability of detection.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Intramedullary nails frequently use in proximal femur fractures. In this study, 49 patients with intertrochanteric fractures were evaluated clinical and radiological results treated with dyna locking trochanteric (DLT™) nail retrospectively. Methods: Twenty-two (44.9%) patients were male and 27 (55.1%) patients were female. Mean age was 74.29±1.98 (28-99) years and Followed up for a mean of 14.35±3.43 (9-24) months. Thirty-seven (75.6%) of the fractures resulted from simple falls while 6 (12.2%) caused from traffic accidents and 6 (12.2%) fall down from height. There were 24 (49.0%) left and 25 (51.0%) right lower extremities fractured. According to Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification system; 21 (42.9%), 21 (42.9%) and 7 (14.2%) fractures were classified as 31A1, 31A2, and 31A3 respectively. One (2.0%) patient had claviculae fracture, 3 (6.1%) patients had radius distal fracture and 1 (2.0%) patient had total knee arthroplasty. After surgery, X-ray was used for radiological results and functional outcomes were evaluated according to the Harris hip scoring system. Results: The average waiting time for the surgery was 2.02±0.18 (1-7) days and hospitalization time was 6.23±0.29 (4-15) days. Mean fracture healing time was 11.74±1.82 (8-15) weeks. Three patients had screw cut-out in the follow-up time and performed hemiarthroplasty. The average Harris hip score was 88.02±1.21 (42- 97) points and included 29 (59.2%) excellent cases, 17 (34.7%) good and 3 (6.1%) poor. Conclusion: DLT ™ nail is a safe and successful method because of low complication rates, and capability of detection.

Özet

Amaç: İntramedüller çiviler proksimal femur kırıklarında yaygın olarak uygulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, intertrokanterik femur kırığı nedeni ile DLT™ çivisi uygulanan 49 hastanın klinik ve radyolojik sonuçları değerlendirilmiştir. Yöntemler: Hastaların 22 (%44,9)’si erkek, 27(%55,1)’si kadındı. Yaş ortalaması 74.29±1.98 (28-99) yıl, ortalama takip süresi 14.35±3.43 (9-24) ay idi. Kırık 37 (%75,6) hastada basit düşme, 6 (%12,2) hastada trafik kazası, 6 (%12,2) hastada yüksekten düşme sonucu gelişti. Hastaların 25 (%51,0)’inde sağ, 24 (%49,0)’ünde sol intertrokanterik kırık mevcuttu. Orthopaedic Trauma Association sınıflamasına göre 21 (%42,9) hasta 31A1, 21 (%42,9) hasta 31A2, 7 (%14,2) hasta 31A3 idi. Ek patoloji olarak hastaların 1 (%2,0)’inde klavikula kırığı, 3 (%6,1)’ünde radius alt uç kırığı ve 1 (%2,0)’inde aynı taraf total diz protezi mevcuttu. Operasyon sonrası radyolojik değerlendirmede direk grafi, fonksiyonel değerlendirmede Harris kalça skorlama sistemi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Hastalara ortalama 2.02±0.18 (1-7) günde cerrahi uygulandı. Ortalama hastanede kalış süresi 6.23±0.29 (4-15) gün idi. Tip apeks mesafesi ortalama 19.61±0.52 (13-28) mm idi. Ortalama kaynama süresi 11.74±1.82 (8- 15) hafta idi. Üç (%6,1) hastada implant yetmezliği gelişti ve bu hastalara parsiyel kalkar destekli kalça protezi uygulandı. Ortalama Harris kalça skoru 88.02±1.21(42-97) idi ve buna göre hastaların 29 (%59,2)’u mükemmel, 17 (%34,7)’u iyi, 3 (%6,1)’i kötü sonuçtu. Sonuç: Düşük komplikasyon oranı ve güçlü tespit sağ- layan DLT™ çivisi intertrokanterik kırıkların tedavisinde başarılı ve güvenli bir uygulamadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARICAN, M., YILDIZ, K. İ., KARADUMAN, Z. O., BULUT, M. Ş., ÖZKAN, S. (2015). Treatment outcomes of intertrochanteric femur fractures treated with DLT™ nail. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 4, 495–500. https://ajindex.com/articles/218296

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Başbozkurt M, Yıldız C. Kalçanın kırık ve çıkıkları. Ed; Canale T, Beaty JH. In Campbell’s operative orthopedics türk- çe baskı,11. Baskı,
  2. Ankara, Güneş tıp kitapevi, 2011:3237- 3271. Mahiroğulları M, Çakmak S, Kürklü M, ve ark. Proksimal femur kırıklarının tedavisinde minimal invaziv cerrahi ve kilitli plak uygulaması. TOTBİD Dergisi 2012;11:49-54.
  3. Schipper IB, Marti RK, Werken C. Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation. Review of literature. Injury 2004;35:142-151.
  4. Gem M, Özkul E, Alemdar C, ve ark. Femur boyun kırıklarının tedavisinde kanüllü vida ile dinamik kalça vidasının karşılaştırılması. J Clin Exp Invest 2015;6:256- 262. Günay C, Atalar H, Altay M, et al. Does the wedge wing in the neck screw prevent cut-out failure in OTA/AO 31- A2 trochanteric fractures in elderly patients? Acta Orthop Belg 2014;80:26-33.
  5. Temiz A, Durak A, Atici T. Unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures in geriatric patients treated with the DLT trochanteric nail. Injury 2015;46:41-46.
  6. Weller I, Wai EK, Jaglal S, Kreder HJ. The effect of hospital type and surgical delay on mortality after surgery for hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:361-366.
  7. Kim SS, Le KY, Kim CH, et al. Comparison of the Dyna locking trochanteric nail, proximal femoral nail antirotation and gamma 3 nail in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of the femur. Hip Pelvis 2013;25:211-219.
  8. Kim YS, Yoon JW, Han SK. Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fracture of the Femur Using a Dyna Locking Trochanteric (DLT) Nail. J Korean Hip Soc 2010;22:216-221.
  9. Li MH, Wu L, Liu Y, Wang CM. Clinical evaluation of the Asian proximal femur intramedullary nail antirotation system (PFNA-II) for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 2014;9:112. Nikoloski AN, Osbrough AL, Yates PJ. Should the tip-apex distance (TAD) rule bemodified for the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA)? A retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res 2013;8:35. Huang H, Xin J, Ma B. Analysis of Complications intertrochanteric fracture treated Gamma 3 intramedullary nail. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:3687-3693.
  10. Seyhan M, Ünay K. Trokanterkırıklarının tedavisinde PFN ve PFNA Çivilerinin Karşılaştırılması. Göztepe Tıp Dergisi 2013;28:86-94.
  11. Schipper BI, Steyerberg EW, Castelein MR, et al. Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures, Randomised comparison of the Gamma Nail and the Proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg 2004;86:86-94.