Mid-Term Results of Different Fixation Methods in Stable Intertrochanteric Fractures

Mohamadhosseiniazar, Peyman; Azarsina, Salman; Mirhoseini, Mohammad Sajjad; Sheibani, Mohamad

doi:10.22034/ijos.2025.551667.1178

Mid-Term Results of Different Fixation Methods in Stable Intertrochanteric Fractures

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

peyman mohamadhosseiniazar ^¶

Salman Azarsina

Mohammad Sajjad Mirhoseini

Mohamad Sheibani

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Clinical Research Development Unit of Shahid Madani Hospital, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22034/ijos.2025.551667.1178

Abstract

Introduction: Intertrochanteric fractures are among the most common hip fractures, especially in the elderly population. DHS and PFNA, remain the main fixation methods for these fractures. This study compares the long-term results of these methods in fractures classified as OTA/AO A1 & A2.1.
Materials & Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. 154 patients treated with DHS, PFNA, within 10 years in a teaching hospital were studied. Outcomes, such as infection, reoperation rate, and mortality were assessed based on age and sex in different subgroups.
Results & Discussion: Analysis of the 154 patients revealed no significant differences in infection rates, need for reoperation, or 5-year mortality between DHS and PFNA methods. However, women and patients older than 70 years treated with DHS showed a higher need for reoperation.
Conclusion: Except for women and individuals over 70 years old who had higher reoperation rates with DHS, no significant difference was observed between the two groups.

Keywords

Intertrochanteric fractures

Fracture fixation

Internal fixators

Subjects

Orthopedi

1 Jonnes, C., S. Shishir, and S. Najimudeen, Type II intertrochanteric fractures: proximal femoral nailing (PFN) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS). Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2016. 4(1): 23-28. PMCID: PMC4733231

2 Veronese, N. and S. Maggi, Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture. Injury, 2018. 49(8):1458-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.015

3 Baumgaertner, M.R., S.L. Curtin, and D.M. Lindskog, Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1976-2007), 1998. 348: 87-94.

4 Kim, W.-Y., et al., Failure of intertrochanteric fracture fixation with a dynamic hip screw in relation to pre-operative fracture stability and osteoporosis. International orthopaedics, 2001. 25: 360-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640100287

5 Sharma, A., A. Sethi, and S. Sharma, Treatment of stable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur with proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw: a comparative study. Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 2018. 53(4): 477-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2017.07.008

6 Singh, D., et al., Comparative study of the management of intertrochanteric fracture femur with proximal femoral nail vs. the dynamic hipscrew with derotation screw in elderly population. Cureus, 2021. 13(11). DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19431

7 Li, H., et al., PFNA vs. DHS helical blade for elderly patients with osteoporotic femoral intertrochanteric fractures. European Review for Medical & Pharmacological Sciences, 2018. 22 (1 Suppl): 1-7.

8 Dai, P., et al., Proximal femoral nail anti‐rotation vs dynamic hip screws decrease the incidence of surgical site infections in patients with intertrochanteric fractures: A meta‐analysis. International Wound Journal, 2023. 20(8):3212-3220. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14200

9 Zeng, X., et al., Conversion to total hip arthroplasty after failed proximal femoral nail antirotations or dynamic hip screw fixations for stable intertrochanteric femur fractures: a retrospective study with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2017. 18:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1415-6

10 Chang, F.-C., et al., The effects of bone-substitute augmentation on treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures. biomedical journal, 2021. 44(6): 717-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2020.05.013