BACKGROUND: Subtrochanteric fractures account for 10% to 30% of all hip fractures. The fractures were repaired with a variety of implants. Direct anatomic reduction or indirect reduction and bridge plating procedures are also possible with the proximal femoral locking plate (PFLP). Proximal femoral nails (PFN) have been demonstrated to be superior to other implants due to biomechanical advantages. The goal of this study was to compare the radiological and functional outcomes of subtrochanteric fractures treated with the proximal femoral nail (PFN) and the proximal femoral locking plate (PFLP), in order to determine which implant was the best t for the specic fracture pattern. METHODS: 50 patients with a Subtrochanteric femur fracture were operated on and treated with a proximal femoral nail and a proximal femoral locking plate (25 in each group). A 24-month follow-up was completed. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) and radiological results were used to determine the outcome. When compared to patients treated wit RESULTS: h a proximal femoral locking plate, individuals treated with proximal femoral nailing required considerably less time to achieve complete weight bearing. In patients treated with a proximal femoral locking plate, radiological union was considerably delayed compared to patients treated with proximal femoral nailing. The average HHS in the nailing group was slightly higher than in the plating group. PFN have the advantage by taking less operative time, high rate of union, mi CONCLUSION: nimal soft tissue damage, less infection rate and early postoperative rehabilitation. In our research, we discovered that both PFN and PFLP can be utilised successfully to treat Subtrochanteric fractures. In terms of anatomical alignment, limb length disparity, postoperative infection, and, most critically, the nal Harris Hip Score, there was no signicant difference between implants.

No abstract