Clinical and functional outcomes of proximal femoral nailing in proximal femur fractures: a prospective study of 100 cases

Sahil R. Dhingani; Parth K. Macwan; Tejas Ashwinkumar Jogi; Jay Tribhuvanbhai Barevadiya; Nisarg Pankajbhai Shah; Parshva Gangeshbhai Sharma; Shyam Shantilal Fadadu

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20253306

Authors

Sahil R. Dhingani Department of Orthopaedics, Narendra Modi Medical College and LG Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Parth K. Macwan Department of Orthopaedics, Narendra Modi Medical College and LG Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Tejas Ashwinkumar Jogi Department of Orthopaedics, Smt. NHL Medical College and SVP Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Jay Tribhuvanbhai Barevadiya Department of Orthopaedics, Narendra Modi Medical College and LG Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Nisarg Pankajbhai Shah Department of Orthopaedics, Narendra Modi Medical College and LG Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Parshva Gangeshbhai Sharma Department of Orthopaedics, Narendra Modi Medical College and LG Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Shyam Shantilal Fadadu Department of Orthopaedics, Narendra Modi Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20253306

Keywords:

Proximal femur fracture, PFN, Harris hip score, Intertrochanteric fracture, Orthopaedic trauma

Abstract

Background: Intertrochanteric fractures are common in elderly osteoporotic patients and carry high morbidity and mortality if not treated adequately. Proximal femoral nailing (PFN) has been developed to overcome limitations of extramedullary fixation devices. Objectives were to evaluate functional and radiological outcomes of PFN in proximal femur fractures.

Methods: A prospective study of 100 patients with intertrochanteric femur fractures was conducted between March 2022 and July 2024. Patients were treated with PFN and followed up for 6-18 months. Functional outcome was assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS).

Results: The mean patient age was 648. years (28-95 years). Left-sided fractures (57%) were more common than right (43%). 68% fractures were unstable (Evan’s classification). Average interval from injury to surgery was 42 days, mean operative time 85 minutes. At one-year follow-up, 66% had excellent, 19% good, 10% fair, and 5% poor outcomes (mean HHS: 8882.). Complications occurred in 15% cases. No non-union was observed.

Conclusions: PFN is a reliable fixation method for intertrochanteric fractures, offering stable fixation, early mobilization, and favorable functional outcomes with minimal complications.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Tornetta P III, Ricci WM, Ostrum RF, McQueen MM, McKee MD. Rockwood and Green’s Fractures in Adults, 9th edition, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2019.

Babhulkar S. Unstable trochanteric fractures: Issues and avoiding pitfalls. Injury. 2017;48(4):803-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.02.022

Boyd HB, Griffin LL. Classification of trochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;56(6):853-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1949.01240030864012

Tronzo RG. Symposium on fractures of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 1974;5(3):571-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-5898(20)31057-9

Kaufer H. Mechanics of the treatment of hip injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;(146):53-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198001000-00008

Ansari Moein CM, Verhofstad MHJ, Bleys RLAW, Werken C van der. Soft tissue injury related to the choice of entry point in ante grade femoral nailing; pyriform fossa or greater trochanter tip. Injury. 2005;36(11):1337-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2004.07.052

Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, Gerolf P, Wolfgang G, Rudolf S. The proximal femoral nail (PFN). Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(1):53-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470310013662

Gadegone WM, Salphale YS. Proximal femoral nail analysis of 100 cases. Int Orthop. 2007;31(3):403-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0170-3

Evans EM. Trochanteric fractures: a review of 100 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1949;31B(2):190-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.31B2.190

Hutchings L, Fox R, Chesser T. Proximal femoral fractures in elderly. Injury. 2011;42(11):1205-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.12.016

Hsu CE, Shih CM, Wang CC, Huang KC. Lateral femoral wall thickness: predictor of fracture. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(8):1134-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31495

Rathore LP, Gupta L, Thakur S, Vaidya S, Sharma D, Sharma A. Treatment of stable and unstable intertrochanteric fractures using proximal femoral nail and their functional assessment using modified Harris hip score. Int J Res Orthop. 2019;5(1):162-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20185340

Banan H, Al-Sabti A, Jimulia T, Hart AJ.The treatment of unstable, extracapsular hip fractures with the AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN)-our first 60 cases. Injury 2002;33(5):401-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(02)00054-2

Jensen JS. Classification of trochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1980;51(5):803-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678008990877

Cyril Jonnes, Shishir SM, Syed Najimudeen: Type II Intertrochanteric Fractures: Proximal Femoral Nailing (PFN) Versus Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS); Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016;4(1):23-8.

Yang J, Wang Q, Chen B. Proximal femoral nail vs dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: A meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(3):559–67.

Chen Y, Liu X, Zhao P, Zhang H, Zhou H, Qin C. A meta-analysis comparing intramedullary with extramedullary fixations for unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(37):e17010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000017010

Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer RF. Analysis of six hundred and twenty-two intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(2):216-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197961020-00009