Fracture of Femur
Conditions
Keywords
BHA , PFN , HHS
Brief summary
Comparing functional outcomes of hemiarthroplasty (prosthetic joint) versus cephalo-medullary fixation ( proximal femoral intramedullary nail) in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures (proximal femur fractures) in elderly people above 60 years old.
Detailed description
The intertrochanteric femoral fractures incidence rate has increased through the last years because of increasing life expectancy, leading to more morbidity and mortality rates . Unstable fracture pattern occurs due to age increase and bone quality decrease. Unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures (ITFF) are considered about 40-45% of hip fractures in elderly people . Of note, 55% of these fractures had unstable patterns . The main objective of treatment is to restore the patients to their preoperative daily activities and medical conditions . Therefore, the surgical treatment aims to return the patient to his pre-fracture level of activity to ensure that the patient moves as soon as possible to prevent complications due to immobility which can lead to death. In an unstable fracture pattern which is characterized by decreased bone quality, it is of great importance to providing efficient and proper treatment . A lot of treatment modalities had been used in the treatment of this fracture pattern such as PFN, unipolar hemiarthroplasty, BHA, and dynamic hip screw (DHS) . On the other hand, it is difficult to perform stable fixation owing to osteoporotic bone quality. The treatment aims to restore the patient's ambulation and decrease medical complications and technical failure. By using either BHA or PFN methods, patients can return to pre-injury levels decreasing complications induced by prolonged immobilization or implant failure . The primary objective of the current study is to compare functional outcomes of unstable ITFF managed by PFN or BHA among cases with ages more than 60 years old. The second main objective is to compare intraoperative and postoperative in both groups.
Interventions
PROCEDUREBipolar hemiarthroplasty , proximal femoral nail
* Removal of head of femur , greater trochanter , and lesser trochanter and use bioplar hemiarthroplasty (BHA). * Intra-medullary fixation of intertrchanteric femoral fracture by proximal femoral nail (PFN) Fixation of the fracture by using intramedullary nail(proximal femoral nail).
Sponsors
Ain Shams University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
60 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Patient over 60 years old. * Unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures
Exclusion criteria
* patient with age less than 60 years old * Hip osteoarthritis * Pathological fractures * Bilateral fractures * Metabolic bone disease * Multiple trauma
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| -Harris Hip Score(HHS) | First 3 months post-operative | \- Harris Hip Score(HHS) : scale from 70 to 100 (70-90) . The higher the HHS, the less dysfunction. A total score of \<70 is considered a poor result; 70-80 is considered fair, 80-90 is good, and 90-100 is an excellent result (1). No normative values are available. |
| -Mobility Score (MS) | First 3 months post-operative | \- Mobility score(MS) : scale from 0 to 3 (0-3) 0 being good mobility and 3 being severely impaired mobility. The higher mobility score, the higher mobility impairment. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| -Harris Hip Score(HHS) | 1 year follow up | \- Harris hip score (HHS): scale from 70 to 100 (70-100). The higher the HHS, the less dysfunction. A total score of \<70 is considered a poor result; 70-80 is considered fair, 80-90 is good, and 90-100 is an excellent result (1). No normative values are available. |
| Mobility Score (MS) | 1 year follow up | \- Mobility score(MS) : scale from 0 to 3 (0-3) 0 being good mobility and 3 being severely impaired mobility. The higher mobility score, the higher mobility impairment. |
Countries
Egypt
Contacts
Primary ContactIslam M Soliman, Master
Backup ContactAhmed M Mohasseb, MD
Outcome results
None listed