A comparative study of fixation of Unstable intertrochanteric Fractures of femur in elderly with dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail

Volume 16 | Issue 2 | April-June 2021 | Page 2-5 | Eknath D Pawar, Akshay KS, Devanshu Gupta, Amit Kumar Yadav, Sagar Bansal, Angad Ravindra Chikodi

Authors: Eknath D Pawar [1], Akshay KS [1], Devanshu Gupta [1], Amit Kumar Yadav [1], Sagar Bansal [1], Angad Ravindra Chikodi [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Grant Govt Medical College & Sir JJ Group of Hospitals Mumbai, India

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Akshay KS,
Department of Orthopaedics, Grant Govt Medical College & Sir JJ Group of
Hospitals Mumbai, India
E-mail: akshayks700@gmail.com


Introduction: Intertrochanteric femur fractures are a common entity in the elderly population and most of them occur following trivial trauma. The incidence of these fractures worldwide is on the rise owing to the increased life expectancy and osteoporosis. The optimal treatment of unstable fractures especially in severely osteoporotic patients remains controversial. Poor bone quality, excessive collapse, metal failure, loss of fixation, and cut-out of the lag screw are the common problems encountered during the attempts to fix these fractures. However, the advantage of Proximal Femur Nailing fixation is that it provides a more biomechanically stable construct by reducing the distance between hip joint and implant.
Objective: The purpose of our study was to compare the results of Proximal femur nail [PFN] and dynamic hip screw [DHS] for unstable intertrochanteric fractures of elderly in terms of functional outcome and complications.
Methods: From 2017-2019, 100 patients were enrolled in the study as per the inclusion criteria and results were analysed prospectively. According to AO Classification, type 3A2.2 and 3A2.3 and above were included. 60 were operated with Short PFN and 40 with Dynamic hip screw. Patients were followed up at regular intervals of 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months and annually thereafter. The functional results were assessed with Harris Hip Score. Results: 37.5% excellent results in DHS group and 66.2% excellent results in PFN group were obtained. We observed statistically significant difference between two groups in view of functional outcomes, complications and time to union. Total duration of surgery was significantly lower in PFN group
Conclusion: For severe osteoporotic elderly with unstable fractures, Short PFN is an effective surgical method compared to DHS to reduce the complications and improve the functional outcome. The procedure offers the best chance to the patient for faster mobilization, improves the quality of life and gives a long-term solution.
Keywords: Intertrochanteric fractures, femur, dynamic, proximal femoral.


1. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Jarvinen M. Epidemology of hip fractures. Bone 1996;18:57S-63S.
2. Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD. Hip fractures are an increasingly public health problem. Clin Orthop RelatRes 1998;348:2.
3. Rockwood PR, Horne JG, Cryer C. Hip fractures: A future epidemic? J Orthop Trauma 1990;4:388-393.
4. LeBlanc ES, Hillier TA, Pedula KL, Rizzo JH, Cawthon PM, Fink HA, Cauley JA, Bauer DC, Black DM, Cummings SR, Browner WS. Hip fracture and increased short- term but not long-term mortality in healthy older women. Arch Intern Med. 2011 Nov 14;171(20):1831- 7. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.447. Epub 2011 Sep 26. PMID: 21949033; PMCID: PMC3576923.
5. Kish B, Sapir O, Carmel A, Regev A, Masrawa S. Full weight bearing after unstable per and subtrochanteric fracture using proximal femur nail. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2001; 83-B, III, 289.
6. Ely Steinberg L, Nehemia Blumberg, Shmuel Deke. The fixion proximal femur nailing system: biomechanical properties of the nail and a cadaveric study” Journal of biomechanics 2005; 38:63-68.
7. Christian B. The proximal femoral nail-a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures, Acta Orthop Scand 2003; 74(1):53-58.
8. Nuber S, Schoweiss T, Ruter A. Stabilization of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilization plate vs Proximal femoral nail Journal of orthopaedic trauma 2003; 17(4):316-317.
9. Pajarinen J. pertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail. A randomized study comparing post operative rehabilitation. JBJS (Br) 2005; 87(1):76-81.
10. Harris Hip Score, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma: September 2006 – Volume 20 – Issue 8 – p S78-S79
11. Haidukewych GJ, Israel TA, Berry DJ. Reverse obliquity fractures of the intertrochanteric region of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 May;83(5):643-50. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200105000-00001. PMID: 11379732.
12. Kang SY, Lee EW, Kang KS, et al… Mode of fixation failures of dynamic hip screw with TSP in the treatment of unstable proximal femur fracture: biomechanical analysis and a report of 3 cases. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2006;41(1):176–180.
13. A. Enocson, L. Mattisson, C. Ottosson, L.J. Lapidus, Hip arthroplasty after failed fixation of trochanteric and sub trochanteric fractures: a cohort study with 5–11year follow-up of 88 consecutive patients, Acta Orthop. 83, 2012, 493–498
14. C. D’ Arrigo, D. Perugia, A. Carcangiu, E. Monaco, A. Speranza, A. Ferretti, Hiparthroplasty for failed treatment of proximal femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34:939–942.
15. Wolfgang GL, Bryant HH, O’Neill JP Treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur using sliding screw plate fixation. Clin Orthop 1982;163:148–158.
16. Suriyajakyuthana W. Intertrochanteric fractures of femur: Results of treatment with 95 degrees condylar blade plate. J Med Assoc Thai 2004;87:1431-1438.
17. Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer RF. Analysis of six hundred and twenty two intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979;61:216-221.

How to Cite this article: Pawar ED, Akshay KS, Gupta D, Yadav AK, Bansal S, Chikodi AR. A comparative study of fixation of Unstable intertrochanteric Fractures of femur in elderly with dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. Journal of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery April-June 2021;16(2): 2-5.

(Abstract Full Text HTML) (Download PDF)