Treatment of instable intertrochanteric femur fractures: comparison of clinical efficacy and treatment costs of bipolar hemiarthroplasty and proximal femoral nail

The aim of the present study was to compare the cost and effectiveness of bipolar hemiarthroplasty (PBH) and proximal femoral nail (PFN) in the management of instable intertrochanteric femur fractures (ITFF) in geriatric population. A total of 51 patients who were surgically treated for ITFF were included in the study. Group A was treated with PFN (n = 26), while group B was treated with BPH (n = 25) during the same period. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated via Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at baseline and 12-month follow-ups. Duration of surgery, amount of blood needed for transfusion, number of patients requiring transfusion, oneyear mortality and re-operation rates, time needed for full weight bearing, number of fluoroscopy scans, hospital costs and complications were recorded and compared between groups. VAS and HHS scores of both groups were significantly improved compared to pretreatment values (p < 0.001). VAS and HHS scores of PFN group were significantly higher than those of BPH group at the last follow-up (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Mean operation time was significantly higher in BPH group (p < 0.001). Percentage of patients requiring transfusion and the amount of blood needed for transfusion were significantly higher in BPH group (p = 0.002 and p = 0.001, respectively). One-year mortality rate in BPH group was almost twice that of the PFN group, and reoperation rate in BPH group was almost three times that of the PFN group. Time needed to full weight bearing was significantly lower in BPH compared to PFN group (p = 0.001). Number of fluoroscopy scans was significantly higher in PFN than that in BPH group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between hospital costs in groups (p = 0.096). Both PFN and BPH methods are efficacious in treating instable intertrochanteric femur fractures. However, PFN has advantages of shorter skin incision, less transfusion need, higher clinical efficacy and less mortality, while BPH offers advantages of early mobilization and less radiation exposure.

PDF

___

Gül D, Akpancar S . Fractures in Geriatric Cases. Geriatrik Bilimler Dergisi 2019; 2: 14-9

Roth T, Kammerlander C, Gosch M, et al. Outcome in geriatric fracture patients and how it can be improved. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21:615-9.

Kesmezacar H, Ayhan E, Unlu MC, et al. Predictors of mortality in elderly patients with an intertrochanteric or a femoral neck fracture. J Trauma. 2010; 68:153-8.

Seyfettinoğlu F, Ersan O, Kovalak E, et al. Fixation of femoral neck fractures with three screws: results and complications. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2011;45:6–13.

Fichman SG, Mäkinen TJ, Safir O, et al. Arthroplasty for unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures may offer a lower re-operation rate as compared to cephalomedullary nailing. Int Orthop. 2016;40:15-20.

Görmeli G, Korkmaz MF, Görmeli CA, et al. Comparison of femur intertrochanteric fracture fixation with hemiarthroplasty and proximal femoral nail systems. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2015;21:503-8.

Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, et al. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 2009;40:428-32.

Simmermacher R, Ljungqvist J, Bail H et al. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA®) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury. 2008;39:932-9.

Takigami I, Matsumoto K, Ohara A et al. Treatment of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA (proximal femoral nail antirotation) nail system: report of early results. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66:276-9.

10. Jones HW, Johnston P, Parker M. Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures. Int Orthop 2006; 30: 69-78.

11. Palm H, Posner E, Ahler-Toftehøj HU et al. High reliability of an algorithm for choice of implants in hip fracture patients. Int Orthop. 2013;37:1121-6.

12. Jensen J. S. Classification of trochanteric fractures. Acta orthop. Scand. 1980;51:803-10.

13. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737-55

14. Tang P, Hu F, Shen J, Zhang L, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus hemiarthroplasty: a study for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Injury. 2012; 43: 876-81.

15. Ilgın MB, Aydemir AN, Songür M, et al. Comparison of proximal femoral nail and hemiarthroplasty results in unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures Pam Med J. 2018;11:101-5.

16. Osman NÖ, Çiftçi S, Telatar A, et al. Problems About the Use of C-Arm Fluoroscopy in Proximal Femoral Nailing Surgery. Haseki Tip Bulteni. 2018;56:209.

17. Kesmezacar H, Oğüt T, Bilgili MG, et al. Treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures in elderly patients: internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2005; 39: 287-94.

18. Geiger F, Zimmermann-Stenzel M, Heisel C, et al. Trochanteric fractures in the elderly: the influence of primary hip arthroplasty on 1-year mortality. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127:959-66.

19. Rogers FB, Shackford SR, Keller MS. Early fixation reduces morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with hip fractures from low-impact falls. J Trauma. 1995;39:261-5.