Extramedullary versus Intramedullary bone fixation Treatment of peritrochanteric fractures

Abstract

Background In the last few decades the rate of peritrochanteric fractures has increased because of increased rate of high velocity trauma accident and bone rarefaction due to osteoporosis in old age. DHS and PFN are the gold standard treatments used in treatment of these fractures. Nineteen studies were identified for analysis from 2007 to 2017 that meet our points of comparison. Aim of the Work Assessing of efficacy and complications of treatmeant of preitrochantric fracture by DHS versus PFN. Materials and Methods Outcomes from included trials will be combined using the systematic review manger software and manually screened for eligibility to be included. PRISMA flowchart will be produced based on the search results and the inclusion /exclusion criteria. After pooling of the collected data from the desired search studies, the relative risk of each of intended outcome measures of interest will be calculated and compared between each of the two main methods of peritrochanteric bone fixation treatment to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Evidence of publication bias will be sought using the funnel plot method. Results PFN is better for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures as it has less complications and better efficacy than DHS. Conclusion The present study supports the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures with PFN, as it has less failure of fixation, decreased wound infection, less duration of surgery and less non-union complication than DHS.