Journals / Acta Medica Alanya / 2019 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

Is PFN with talon locking system as successful as PFNA in geriatric hip fracture?

Geriatrik kalça kırıklarında talon proksimal femoral çivileme (pfn) proksimal femoral çivi-antirotasyon (PFN-A) kadar başarılı mı?

Pages
261–266
Publication Date
2022-09-04
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: As a result, PFN with Talon lock is an easy and reliable alternative to PFN systems because of less radiation exposure and shorter surgical time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: We compared the functional and radiological results and radiation exposure of patients treated with PFN-A and the Talon-locked PFN.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The study included 92 patients (43 women, 49 men; mean age 75.01 years) who underwent PFN with the diagnosis of proximal femur fracture between 2014-2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: As a result, PFN with Talon lock is an easy and reliable alternative to PFN systems because of less radiation exposure and shorter surgical time.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014-2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: We compared the functional and radiological results and radiation exposure of patients treated with PFN-A and the Talon-locked PFN. Methods: The study included 92 patients (43 women, 49 men; mean age 75.01 years) who underwent PFN with the diagnosis of proximal femur fracture between 2014-2018. In our retrospective study, patients were divided into two groups: the Talon locked PFN group 1 (n= 46) and the PFN-A group 2 (n = 46). Demographic data, radiographic findings, WOMAC scores and C-arm scopy shots were evaluated. Results : The mean follow-up period was 11.05 months. Mortality was %4.3 in Group I and %6.5 in Group II. The collodiaphyseal angle was 129.5 ± 3.4 in Group I and 126.8 ± 3.6 in Group II (p = 0.01); Singh index was found to be 4.1 in Group I and 3.62 in Group II (p = 0.06); union was 4.62 ± 1.06 in Group I and 5.1 ± 1.51 in Group II (p = 0.68). The duration of fluoroscopy was 53.08 (45-89) in Group I and 97.4 (76- 150) in Group II (p <0.05). The duration of fracture union was 4.62 ± 1.06 in Group I, 5.1 ± 1.51 (p = 0.68) in Group II, 69.9 ± 4.26 in Group I and 70.2 ± 5.75 in Group II (p = 0.78). Conclusion: As a result, PFN with Talon lock is an easy and reliable alternative to PFN systems because of less radiation exposure and shorter surgical time.

Özet

Amaç: PFN-A kullanılarak tedavi edilen hastaların fonksiyonel ve radyolojiksonuçlarını ve radyasyon maruziyetini Talon kilitli PFN ile karşılaştırdık.Yöntem: Çalışmaya 2014-2018 tarihleri arasında proksimal femur kırığı tanısı ilePFN yapılan 60 yaşından büyük 92 hasta (43 kadın,49 erkek; ort. yaş 75.01 yıl) dahiledildi. Retrospektif çalışmamızda hastalar Talon kilitli PFN grubu (grup 1, n=46) vePFN-A grubu (grup 2, n=46) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. Hastaların demografikverileri, kırık tipleri, takip süreleri, kırık kaynama zamanları, radyografik bulguları,WOMAC skorları ile C-kollu skopi çekim sayıları değerlendirmeye alındı.Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama takip süreleri 11.05 aydı. Mortalite Grup I de %4.3,Grup II de %6.5 olarak bulundu. Kollodiafizer açı Grup I de 129.5±3.4, Grup II de126.8±3.6 (p=0.01); Singh indeksi Grup I de 4.1, Grup II de 3.62 (p=0.06); kaynama Grup I de 4.62±1.06, Grup II de 5.1±1.51(p=0.68) olarak gözlendi. Skopi çekimsüresi Grup I de 53.08 (45-89), Grup II de 97.4 (76-150) (p<0.05) olarak gözlendi.Kırık kaynama süreleri Grup I de 4.62±1.06, Grup II de 5.1±1.51 (p=0.68), WOMAC skorları Grup I de 69.9±4.26, Grup II de 70.2±5.75 (p=0.78) olarak tespit edildi.Grup I de 2 hastada (%4.3) komplikasyon gözlenirken, Grup II de 5 hastada (%10.8)komplikasyon gözlendi.Sonuç: Talon kilitli PFN, radyasyon maruziyetinin az olması, cerrahi sürenin dahakısa olması sebebiyle PFN sistemlerinin kolay ve güvenilir bir alternatifidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALEMDAROĞLU, K. B., İLTAR, S., ÖZMERİÇ, A., DİNÇEL, V. E., SUBAŞI, Ö., ARICAN, G. (2022). Is PFN with talon locking system as successful as PFNA in geriatric hip fracture?. Acta Medica Alanya, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 261–266. https://ajindex.com/articles/425866

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Cooper C, Cole Z, Holroyd C, Earl S, Nicholas C, Elaine M et al. Secular trends in the incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporosis international. 2011;22(5):1277. doi:
  2. Tanner DA, Kloseck M, Crilly RG, Chesworth B, Gilliland J. Hip fracture types in men and women change differently with age. BMC geriatrics. 2010;10(1):12.doi: https://doi. org/10.1186/1471-2318-10-12 3. Bridle SH, Patel A, Bircher M, Calvert PT. Fixation of intertrochanteric 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;73(2):330-334.doi:
  3. Browner D, Jupiter J, Levine A, Trafton P. Intertrochanteric femur fracture. Skelatal Trauma. 1996;2:1883-1926. doi:
  4. Larsson S, Friberg S, Hansson L-I, Trochanteric fractures. Influence of reduction and implant position on impaction and complications. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 1990(259): p. 130-139. PMID: 2208847 6. Min W-K, Kim S-Y, Kim T-K, Lee K-B, Cho M-R, Ha Y-C et al. Proximal femoral nail for the treatment of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures compared with gamma nail. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2007;63(5):1054-1060. doi: 10.1097/01. ta.0000240455.06842.a0 7. Brunner A, Jöckel JA, Babst R. The PFNA proximal femur nail in treatment of unstable proximal femur fractures-3 cases of postoperative perforation of the helical blade into the hip joint. Journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2008. 22(10): p. 731-736. doi: 10.1097/ BOT.0b013e3181893b1b 8. Schipper I, Marti R, Van der Werken C. Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation: review of literature. Injury. 2004;35(2):142-151. doi:
  5. Sharma A, Mahajan A, John B. A comparison of the clinico-radiological outcomes with proximal femoral nail (PFN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2017;11(7):RC05. PMID: 28892987 10. Konya MN, Korkusuz F, Maralcan G, Demir T, Aslan A. The use of a proximal femoral nail as a hip prosthesis: A biomechanical analysis of a newly designed implant. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018 Feb;232(2):200-206. doi: 10.1177/0954411917751561. Epub 2018 Jan 3. PMID: 29298621
  6. Park SY, Y