Aim: In the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures, proximal femoral nail (PFN), and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BPH) are widely used. This study aimed to compare these two types of implants depending on risk factors regarding patients.
Material and Method: PFN (Group 1) was applied to 40 of the 89 patients (44 female, 45 male) aged between 51-80 (mean 68.16±6.78) and BPH (Group 2) was applied to 49 of them. Age, gender, fracture side, fracture mechanism, additional disease, Body mass index (BMI), Albumin level, Hemoglobin (Hb) decrease level, T-score, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, type of anesthesia, surgery type, operation time, hospital stay and full weight-bearing time, Harris Hip Score (HHS) in preoperative and postoperative periods, classification of intertrochanter fracture according to the AO Foundation and Orthopedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA), postoperative complications were recorded.
Results: Group 1 was younger with a mean age of 64.55±6.23 years compared to Group 2 (p <0.05). Most of the fractures were 3A2 type and the result of low energy (p>0.05). In group 1, operation time was 46.78±5.29 minutes and hospital stay was 2.48±0.75 days, which was shorter, most surgery types were closed, T-score was -2.49±0.59 and better, the time of full weight-bearing was 3.48±0.78 months, Hb decrease was 1.17±0.37 g/dL and less, Albumin level was 3.11±0.4 g/dL and higher (p<0.05). In Group 2, the age was the highest (72.6±5.2) and the T score was the lowest (-2.9±0.4) in the 3A2 fracture type (p<0.05). HHS was better in the BPH group at the sixth month (p<0.05), and there was no difference between the two groups at the end of one year (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Prognostic markers for treatment outcomes in individuals with intertrochanteric fractures are still unknown. It is important to determine the factors that will contribute to the long-term functional results in these patients.
Intertrochanteric femur fracture proximal femoral nail bipolar hemiarthroplasty prognostic factors functional outcomes
Primary Language | English |
---|---|
Subjects | Health Care Administration |
Journal Section | Research Articles |
Authors | |
Early Pub Date | October 21, 2022 |
Publication Date | October 22, 2022 |
Published in Issue | Year 2022 Volume: 4 Issue: 4 |
TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)
Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency: Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]
Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.
You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show
Journal Indexes and Platforms:
TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.The indexes of the journal's are;
The platforms of the journal's are;
The indexes/platforms of the journal are;
TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit
EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI is under evaluation.
Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"