Outcome Evaluation of Extracapsular Hip Fractures Managed with IMN and 32 mm Threaded Lag Screw DHS Plate

  • Vishal Shinde Assistant Professor, Orthopaedics, Pacific Medical College & Hospital Udaipur, Rajasthan.
  • Opender Singh Kajla Senior Resident AIMS & RC Rajsamand & RNT Medical college Udaipur Rajasthan
Keywords: Extracapsular Hip Fractures, DHS Plate

Abstract

Background: Present prospective study is an effort to find out outcome of procedures opted for the fixation of the extracapsular hip fractures. Basic objective of the study is to search best mode of fixation for intertrochanteric fracture so that the patients especially older are benefitted the most. Methods: The present study is carried out in two medical college concomitantly. Total 80 patients have been included in this study. Patients were divided in two groups A, B (40 patients in each group). Surgical intervention of group A was done in RNTMC, Udaipur with 32 mm threaded lag screw DHS plate & other 40 patients of group B were managed surgically in AIMS & RC in Rajsamand with intramedullary nailing. Extracapsular hip fracture classified according to AO & fixed accordingly to their group plan. Functional status evaluated with Salvati & Wilson assessment score.

Result-Both groups were evaluated up to 12 months minimum. At the end of 12 months result of group B (treated with IMN) were quite superior & promising as compared to group A (treated with 32 mm threaded lag screw DHS plate).
Conclusion: Although there is no difference in long term follow up but early results in terms of convalescence, rehabilitation, early return to pre fracture level was found better in group B so the IMN should be considered as preferable mode of fixation in intertrochanteric fracture in all age groups.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Gullberg, Olof Johnell, John Antony Kanis-International Journal of Osteoporosis 1997;10.1007/PL00004148.
2. Salvati EA, Wilson PD. Long term results of femoral head replacement. J Bone Joint surg Am (internet0 1973 Apr:55 (3): 515-24.
3. Gallaghar JC, Melton LJ , Riggs BL , Bergstrath E. Epidemiology of fractures of proximal femur in Rochester, Minnesota . Clin Orthop Relat Res (internet). 1980;150:163-71.
4. Boyd HB. Classification and treatment of trochanteric fractures. Arch Surgery(internet).1949 june 1:58(6):853-66.
5. Urnier SK, Dresing K. Pertrochanteric fracture. Zentralbl Chir. 1995:120(11):862-72.
6. Koval KJ, Aharonff GB, Rokito AS, Lyon T, Zuckerman JD. Patients with femoral neck & intertrochanteric fractures: Are they the same? Clon oethop Relat Res (internet). 1996: 330.
7. Domingo L, Cecilia D, Herrera A, Resines C. Trochanteric fractures treated with a proximal
nail. IntOrthop(internet) 2001 oct 12;25(5):298-301.
8. Amandeep singh et al-Comparative study between DHS & PFN in intertrochanteric fractures
of femur,IJOS 2018;4(I):259-262.
9. Kairui Zhang et al- proximal femoral nail vs dynamic hip screw in treatment of
intertrochanteric frature-a meta-analysis, med.sci. monitor 2014,20;1628-1633.
10. PC Altner-Reasons of failure of intertrochanteric fracture-1982(Internet).
11. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM Keggi JM.The value of the tip-apex distance on
predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J bone joint surgery(internet). 1995 Jul 1;77(7):1058-64.
Published
2019-06-29
How to Cite
1.
Shinde V, Kajla O. Outcome Evaluation of Extracapsular Hip Fractures Managed with IMN and 32 mm Threaded Lag Screw DHS Plate. IABCR [Internet]. 29Jun.2019 [cited 18Sep.2019];5(2):4-. Available from: https://iabcr.org/index.php/iabcr/article/view/472