首页> 外文期刊>Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. >High risks of failure observed for A1 trochanteric femoral fractures treated with a DHS compared to the PFNA in a prospective observational cohort study
【24h】

High risks of failure observed for A1 trochanteric femoral fractures treated with a DHS compared to the PFNA in a prospective observational cohort study

机译:在一项前瞻性观察性队列研究中,与 PFNA 相比,接受 DHS 治疗的 A1 股骨转子骨折观察到的高失败风险

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Introduction Both the DHS and the PFNA are common and well-studied treatment options for stable trochanteric fractures. The aim of the current study was to compare the implant failure rates of these two implants in 31A1 type trochanteric femoral fractures. Materials and methods A single-centre observational cohort study was conducted in the Hip Fracture Unit of a multicentre level 1 trauma teaching hospital between December 2016 and October 2018. Patients with an AO/OTA type 31A1 fracture were included. Pathological fractures, bilateral fractures, high-energy traumas and patients younger than 18 years of age were excluded. Surgery was performed using either a DHS or PFNA. Both were used routinely for stable trochanteric fractures, and allocation was decided by the surgeon performing the operation. The primary outcome of this study was the implant failure rate in the first postoperative year. Secondary outcomes included the reoperation rate, functional recovery, pain and morphine use. Results Data were available from 126 patients treated with a DHS (n = 32, 25.4) or PFNA (n = 95, 74.6). Minor differences were observed in the patient characteristics including the prevalence of cognitive impairment (18.8 vs 40.2; P = 0.028), prefracture independence in activities of daily living (87.1 vs 67.4; P = 0.034) and prefracture mobility (independently without aides: 61.3 vs 40.4; P = 0.033). Fractures treated with a DHS showed 25 implant failures, compared to 1.1 for fractures treated with a PFNA (P = 0.004). No differences were observed in any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Significantly more implant failures were observed for the DHS compared the PFNA within 1 year after surgery. Despite the fact that this did not result in differences in revision surgery, we conclude that the PFNA, considering the minimal number of implant-related fractures is a viable implant for A1 type trochanteric fractures.
机译:引言 DHS 和 PFNA 都是稳定型转子骨折的常见且经过充分研究的治疗选择。本研究的目的是比较这两种植入物在 31A1 型股骨转子骨折中的种植失败率。材料和方法 2016 年 12 月至 2018 年 10 月期间,在一家多中心 1 级创伤教学医院的髋部骨折科进行了一项单中心观察性队列研究。纳入 AO/OTA 31A1 型骨折患者。病理性骨折、双侧骨折、高能量创伤和 18 岁以下的患者被排除在外。使用 DHS 或 PFNA 进行手术。两者都常规用于稳定型转子骨折,分配由进行手术的外科医生决定。本研究的主要结果是术后第一年的种植失败率。次要结局包括再手术率、功能恢复、疼痛和吗啡使用。结果 126例接受DHS(n=32,25.4%)或PFNA(n=95,74.6%)治疗的患者获得数据。在患者特征方面观察到细微差异,包括认知障碍的患病率(18.8% vs 40.2%;P = 0.028)、日常生活活动断裂前独立性(87.1% vs 67.4%;P = 0.034)和骨折前活动度(独立无辅助:61.3% vs 40.4%;P = 0.033)。用 DHS 治疗的骨折显示 25% 的植入失败,而 1.PFNA 治疗的骨折为 1% (P = 0.004)。在任何次要结局中均未观察到差异。结论 与PFNA相比,DHS在术后1年内观察到的种植失败率显著增加。尽管这并没有导致翻修手术的差异,但我们得出结论,考虑到种植体相关骨折的最小数量,PFNA 是 A1 型转子骨折的可行植入物。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号