Comparison of clinical outcomes with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures: A meta-analysis

16Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS) for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures, including the available evidence drawn from the literature. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify available and relevant randomized controlled trials and retrospective comparative observational studies regarding PFNA compared against DHS in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus Online up to February 12, 2022. Data from the included studies were extracted independently by 2 reviewers and analyzed using RevMan 5.3, and the quality of the studies was assessed. Results: Five randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies were recruited and met the inclusion criteria, which consisted of 1332 patients with PFNA and 1271 patients with DHS. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the DHS, PFNA exhibited a beneficial role in postoperative Harris Hip Scores, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, fracture healing time and full weight-bearing time, limb shortening, cutout, reoperation, union problems, the varus collapse of the femoral head/neck, and infection; however, DHS was superior to PFNA in hidden blood loss (relative risk [RR] = 139.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] [136.18, 143.43], P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhang, C., Chen, Z., Wang, M., Chen, W., & Ding, Z. (2023). Comparison of clinical outcomes with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures: A meta-analysis. Medicine (United States), 102(6), E32920. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000032920

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free