• Fu-Ting Huang, Kai-Cheng Lin, Shan-Wei Yang, and Jenn-Huei Renn.
• Department of Orthopedics, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, 386 Ta-Chung 1st Rd, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan 81346, ROC. fthuang@vghks.gov.tw
• Orthopedics. 2012 Jan 1; 35 (1): e41-7.

AbstractThe purpose of our study was to compare the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA; Synthes, Paoli, Pennsylvania) with a reconstruction nail (Recon; Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) in the treatment of comminuted proximal femoral fractures. Between 2003 and 2010, twenty-three consecutive patients with AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association 31-A3 fractures combined with proximal 32 fractures who had a minimum 18-month follow-up were evaluated retrospectively. There were 10 patients (age range, 18-74 years) in the Recon nail group and 13 patients (age range, 22-90 years) in the PFNA nail group. Patients treated with Recon nails experienced a longer operation time (P=.006) and more blood loss (P=.012) than patients treated with the PFNA nail. On postoperative radiographs, the change in the neck-shaft angle was 8.8° in the Recon nail group and 4.7° in the PFNA nail group (P=.048). The fracture union time averaged 31.8 weeks in the Recon nail group and 21.5 weeks in the PFNA nail group (P=.148). More patients in the Recon nail group underwent major or minor reoperation (P=.038) compared with the PFNA nail group. No implant failure occurred in either group. The functional results were similar in the 2 groups. For the treatment of comminuted proximal femoral fractures, use of either the PFNA and Recon nail is clinically effective. However, the PFNA nail provides a shorter operation time, less blood loss, and better realignment ability and reduces the incidence of reoperation. Therefore, the PFNA nail can be considered a better device than the Recon nail.Copyright 2012, SLACK Incorporated.

21 keywords...

hide…