Antirotation proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies - 24/05/13

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.12.019

L. Shen ^a, Y. Zhang ^a, Y. Shen ^a,^⁎ , Z. Cui ^b
^a Department of Orthopedics, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, No. 1665, Kongjiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai 200092, China
^b Department of Orthopaedics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No. 25, Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong 226058, China

^*Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 021 25078656; fax: +86 021 25078656.

conectar o crear una cuenta

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
Artículo gratuito.

Conéctese para beneficiarse!

En prensa. Pruebas corregidas por el autor. Disponible en línea desde el Friday 24 May 2013
This article has been published in an issue click here to access

Summary

Background

Previous studies comparing proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) with dynamic hip screw (DHS) for peritrochanteric fractures reported conflicting findings. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of PFNA and DHS for pertrochanteric fractures.

Hypothesis

PFNA achieves better efficacy for peritrochanteric fractures compared with DHS.

Materials and methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials comparing PFNA with DHS for pertrochanteric fractures were assessed for eligibility and included into this meta-analysis. Data were extracted independently and methodological quality was further assessed. The inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis were: randomized controlled trials comparing PFNA with DHS for pertrochanteric fractures and reporting at least one of these main outcomes, including operating time, blood loss, all causes mortality, and complications.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials were finally included into this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed there were less blood loss (weighted mean difference Blood loss=−249.75ml, 95%CI −303.83 to −195.67, P<0.0001) and fewer complications (Odds ratio=0.40, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.70, P=0.001) in the PFNA group compared with the DHS group. However, there was no difference in term of mortality between those two groups (Odds ratio mortality=1.13, 95%CI 0.47 to 2.69, P=0.79). Sensitivity analysis by sequential omission of individual studies showed that the significance of pooled odds ratios was robust, which suggested this outcome was credible.

Discussion

PFNA can benefit peritrochanteric fractures patients with less blood loss and fewer complications compared with DHS. The significant heterogeneity among the included trials for intraoperative blood loss, and operation time may be attributable to variation in the skills of the surgeons and the different types of perirochanteric fractures. In addition, more powered randomized studies are needed to identify the findings from this meta-analysis, and the effects of long-term follow-up also need further study, especially the impact on the mortality.

Level of evidence: Level II, meta-analysis of low powered randomized study.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Peritrochanteric fractures, Proximal femoral nail antirotation, Dynamic hip screw, Meta-analysis