Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
-
J Korean Hip Soc. 2008 Dec;20(4):286-292. Korean. Comparative Study. https://doi.org/10.5371/jkhs.2008.20.4.286
Yoo JH , Park JS , Noh KC , Chung KJ , Kim HK , Kang JK , Hwang JH .
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. dr73@hallym.or.kr
Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the results between PFNA (Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation) and PFN (Proximal Femoral Nail) in the treatment of peritrochanteric fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient group with PFNA (n=24, group I) was taken from operations between February, 2007, and March, 2008, whereas the PFN patient group (n=24, group II) were taken from January, 2005, to January, 2007. Both groups were carefully compared with regard to operation time, estimated blood loss, amount of transfusion, ICU care, amount of drainage, average duration of admission, intra- and postoperative complications, radiologic union, Tip Apex Distance (TAD), the change of neck shaft angle, the sliding length of lag screw, Jensen's functional score, and Paker and Palmer's mobility score. RESULTS: The results of our study showed statistical (P<0.05) advantages of PFNA over PFN where estimated blood loss, amount of drainage, rate of complication, neck and shaft angle, and sliding length were concerned. However, there was no statistical significance between the two groups regarding the other areas that were examined (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: PFNA appears to be more effective than PFN for the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.