Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Orthop. Nov 18, 2020; 11(11): 483-491
Published online Nov 18, 2020. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i11.483
Published online Nov 18, 2020. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i11.483
Table 1 Demographic details and fracture characteristics in the proximal femoral nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation groups
| PFN group | PFNA group | P value | |
| Number of patients | 73 | 85 | NA |
| Male:female | 31:42 | 37:48 | 0.893 |
| Age, yr | 76.6 (65-90) | 74.9 (65-92) | 0.213 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 21.4 (18.5-31.6) | 22.8 (20.4-28.3) | 0.576 |
| Femoral BMD, T-score | -2.83 (-1.3 to -5.3) | -3.14(-1.1 to -6.1) | 0.518 |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index[15] | 13.4 (3-18) | 11.9 (4-19) | 0.536 |
| Cause of injury | 0.890 | ||
| Slip down | 56 | 65 | |
| Traffic accident | 8 | 11 | |
| Fall down | 9 | 9 | |
| AO/OTA classification | 0.750 | ||
| 31-A1 | 14 | 19 | |
| 31-A2 | 42 | 50 | |
| 31-A3 | 17 | 16 | |
| Stay before operation, d | 4.02 (1-13) | 2.84 (1-17) | 0.253 |
Table 2 Clinical outcomes in the proximal femoral nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation groups
| PFN group | PFNA group | P value | |
| Operation time, min | 67.3 | 63.2 | 0.395 |
| Salvati and Wilson score score[16] | 0.328 | ||
| Excellent (32 or more) | 26 | 36 | |
| Good (24-31) | 35 | 44 | |
| Fair (16-23) | 8 | 4 | |
| Poor (15 or less) | 4 | 1 | |
| Excellent + good | 61 (83.6%) | 80 (94.1%) | 0.033 |
| Mortality within one year | 16 (21.9%) | 20 (23.5%) | 0.629 |
Table 3 Radiographic results in the proximal femoral nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation groups
| PFN group | PFNA group | P value | |
| Reduction | 0.830 | ||
| Good, n (%) | 34 (46.6%) | 42 (49.4%), | |
| Normal, n (%) | 31 (42.5%) | 36 (42.4%) | |
| Poor | 8 | 7 | |
| Cleveland Index | 0.577 | ||
| Zone 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Zone 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| Zone 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| Zone 4 | 2 | 2 | |
| Zone 5 | 34 | 42 | |
| Zone 6 | 11 | 15 | |
| Zone 7 | 3 | 4 | |
| Zone 8 | 14 | 19 | |
| Zone 9 | 8 | 3 | |
| Zone 5 + 6 + 8 + 9, n (%) | 67 (91.8%) | 79 (92.9%) | 0.218 |
| TAD, mm | 7.2 (2.1-12.3) | 7.9 (3.6-14.9) | 0.222 |
| Union rate, % (n) | 87.7 (64/73) | 94.1 (80/85) | 0.155 |
| Union time, wk | 14.9 (12-17) | 13.7 (11-18) | 0.156 |
| Sliding distance, mm | 6.1 (0-23.6) | 3.2 (0-18.4) | 0.036 |
Table 4 Complications in both groups
| PFN group | PFNA group | P value | |
| Screw cutout, n (%) | 8 (11.0%) | 2 (2.4%) | 0.027 |
| Nonunion, n (%) | 9 (12.3%) | 5 (5.9%) | 0.155 |
| Infection | 2 | 1 | 0.473 |
| ONFH | 1 | 0 | 0.279 |
| Implant breakage | 1 | 0 | 0.279 |
- Citation: Baek SH, Baek S, Won H, Yoon JW, Jung CH, Kim SY. Does proximal femoral nail antirotation achieve better outcome than previous-generation proximal femoral nail? World J Orthop 2020; 11(11): 483-491
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v11/i11/483.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v11.i11.483
