A study of management of trochanteric fracture of femur treated with dynamic sliding hip screw-plate device vs. proximal femoral nail


  • Upal Banerjee Department of Orthopedics, ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Banbishnupur, Purba Medinipur, Haldia, West Bengal
  • Abhishek Chattopadhyay Department of Orthopedics, ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Banbishnupur, Purba Medinipur, Haldia, West Bengal
  • Nirmal Kumar Dey Department of Orthopedics, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College, Purabbali, Dinajpur Road, Kishanganj, Bihar
  • Prashant Kumar Sinha Department of Orthopedics, World College Of Medical Sciences And Hospital, Gurawar, Jhajjar, Haryana
  • Writtika Chattaraj Department of Physiology, Bankura Sammilani Medical College, Kenduadihi, Bankura, West Bengal
  • Sukanta Sen Department of Pharmacology, ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Banbishnupur, Purba Medinipur, Haldia, West Bengal http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8348-0251




Trochanteric fracture, Dynamic hip screw (DHS), Proximal femoral nail (PFN), Outcome analysis, Nail


Background: The incidence of intertrochanteric fractures has been increasing significantly due to the rising age of modern human populations. Generally, intramedullary fixation [proximal femoral nail (PFN) and gamma nail] and extra-medullary fixation [dynamic hip screw (DHS)] are the 2 primary options for treatment of such fractures.  Objectives: The goal of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographical results of DHS and PFN for the treatment of trochanteric hip fractures. 

Methods: Patients with trochanteric fractures were treated either with DHS or  PFN in the Department of Orthopaedics, M.G.M. Medical College and L.S.K Hospital, Kishanganj, Bihar from October 2010 to October 2012 were included for this study.

Results: Forty three patients (24 male and 19 female, ratio of M:F 1.26:1) surgically treated for trochanteric fractures were divided into two groups. Group 1: 25 hips treated with DHS and group 2: 18 hips treated with PFN. The outcome for each group was analyzed, and total operative time, time to union, complications (early and late), and mortality were recorded. The results were statistically compared. Out of 25 cases of DHS, majority cases (13) took between 1 hour 36 minutes to 2 hours. Whereas, out of 18 cases of PFN, majority (8) took 1 hour to 1 hour 30 minutes. The mean time to union for group 1 was 2.09 months and 1.69 months for group 2. Early and late complication rates between treatment groups revealed no statistically significant differences. Total duration of surgery was significantly lower for PFN than it was for DHS. A comparison of time to union and overall mortality demonstrated no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions: We detected no differences between the two treatment groups in regard to early versus late complications, time to union, and overall mortality; however, with its shorter operative period, PFN is a good alternative to the DHS.


Cummings SR, Rubin SM, Black D. The future of hip fractures in the United States. Numbers, costs, and potential effects of postmenopausal estrogen. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;252:163-6.

Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18(1):57-63.

Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, Tufanisco CB. Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(4):229-33.

Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT. Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomized prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(2):330–4.

Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK. A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(5):789–93.

Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS. Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury. 1995;9:615–8.

Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Ristiniemi J, Hyvönen P, Leppilahti J, Jalovaara P. Functional comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail in trochanteric hip fractures: a matched-pair study of 268 patients. Int Orthop. 2009;33(1):255–60.

Goldhagen PR, O'Connor DR, Schwarze D, Schwartz E. A prospective comparative study of the compression hip screw and the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8(5):367-72.

Hoffman CW, Lynskey TG. Intertrochanteric fractures of the femur: a randomized prospective comparison of the Gamma nail and the Ambi hip screw. Aust N Z J Surg. 1996;66(3):151-5.

Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsularhip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD000093.

Zhang K, Zhang S, Yang J, Dong W, Wang S, Cheng Y, et al. Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:1628-33.

Anand J. The Elements of Fracture Fixation. New York, NY, USA: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.

Banan H, Al-Sabti A, Jimulia T, Hart AJ. The treatment of unstable, extra-capsular hip fractures with the AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN)--our first 60 cases. Injury. 2002;33(5):401-5.

Schipper IB, Bresina S, Wahl D, Linke B, Van Vugt AB, Schneider E. Biomechanical evaluation of the proximal femoral nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(405):277-86.

Nuber S, Schönweiss T, Rüter A. Stabilisation of x hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate vs. proximal femur nail (PFN) Unfallchirurg. 2003;106(1):39–47.

Huang ZY, Liu XW, Su JC. Dynamic hip screw vs. proximal femur nail in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in patients aged over 70 years old. Shanghai Med J. 2010;33(11):1042.

Pajarinen J, Lindahl J, Michelsson O, Savolainen V, Hirvensalo E. Pertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail: a randomised study comparing post-operative rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg B. 2005;87(1):76–81.

Parker MJ, Pryor GA. Gamma versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fractures. Meta-analysis of ten randomised trials. Int Orthop. 1996;20:163–8.

Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, Van der Werken C. The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 1999;30:327–32.

Domingo LJ, Cecilia D, Herrera A, Resines C. Trochanteric fractures treated with a proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop. 2001;25:298–301.

Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, Peicha G, Grechenig W, Szyszkowitz R. The proximal femoral nail (PFN)—a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:53–8.

Sahin O, Demirors H, Akgun R, Senturk I, Tuncay IC. Dynamic hip screw versus proximal femoral nail for treatment of trochanteric hip fractures: an outcome analyses with a minimum 2 years of follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2012;22(6):473-80.

Madsen JE, Naess L, Aune AK, Alho A, Ekeland A, Stromsoe K. Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the Gamma nail and compression hip screw. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:241–8.

Sadowski C1, Lübbeke A, Saudan M, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P. Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(3):372-81.

Vidán M, Serra JA, Moreno C, Riquelme G, Ortiz J. Efficacy of a comprehensive geriatric intervention in older patients hospitalized for hip fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:1476-82.

Orosz GM, Magaziner J, Hannan EL, Morrison RS, Koval K, Gilbert M et al. Association of timing of surgery for hip fracture and patient outcomes. JAMA. 2004;291:1738-43.

Roche JJ, Wenn RT, Sahota O, Moran CG. Effect of comorbidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ. 2005;331(7529):1374.

Alobaid A, Harvey EJ, Elder GM, Lander P, Guy P, Reindl R. Minimally invasive dynamic hip screw: prospective randomized trial of two techniques of insertion of a standard dynamic fixation device. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:207-12.

Chirodian N, Arch B, Parker MJ. Sliding hip screw fixation of trochanteric hip fractures: outcome of 1024 procedures. Injury. 2005;36:793-800.

Jones HW, Johnston P, Parker M. Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures. Int Orthopaedics. 2006;30(2):69–78.

Huang X, Leung F, Xiang Z, Tan PY, Yang J, Wei DQ, et al. Proximal Femoral Nail versus Dynamic Hip Screw Fixation for Trochanteric Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Sci World J. 2013;2013:805805.

Pan X, Xiao D, Lin B, Huang G. Dynamic hip screws (DHS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of femur in elderly patients. Chinese J Orthop Trauma. 2004;6(7):785–9.

Giraud B, Dehoux E, Jovenin N, Segal P. Pertrochanteric fractures: a randomized prospective study comparying dynamic screw plate and intramedullary fixation. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopedique et Reparatrice de l’Appareil Moteur 2005;91(8):732–6.

Parker M, Bowers T, Pryor G. Sliding hip screw versus the targon PF nail in the treatment of trochanteric fractures of the hip: a randomised trial of 600 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(3):391–7.






Original Research Articles