Trochanteric fractures treated by the McLaughlin nail and plate

Nielsen, B. Paaschburg; Jelnes, R; Rasmussen, L. Bjrrrrn; Ebling, A.

doi:10.1016/0020-1383(85)90140-8

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously used one-piece nail-plate devices were not sufficiently strong to withstand the stress of an unstable trochanteric fracture and had a high failure rate (Holt 1963, Jensen et al 1980, Jensen 1981, HeyseMoore et al 1983, Paaschburg Nielsen et al 1985. The biomechanical behavior of the RAB-plate is different from other fixed nail-plate devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Radiographs revealed that the RAB-plate was positioned too close to the subchondral line and the CHS was inserted too high in the femoral head in all cases where femoral head penetration was observed (Laros and Moore 1974, Doppelt 1980, Paaschburg Nielsen et al 1985, Davis et al 1990). In our experience, the RAB-plate did not require additional screw fixation or cerclage wiring of fracture fragments or bone grafting to compensate for bone loss, which is recommended under certain circumstances when a CHS is used (Chang et al 1987, Ape1 et al 1989, Kyle et al 1994.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment failure of unstable trochanteric fractures has been related to the type of internal fixation (Laros and Moore 1974, Jensen 1981, Anderson et al 1984, MGller et al 1984, Paaschburg Nielsen et al 1985, instability after fixation (Flores et al 1990), inadequate reduction, osteoporosis and poor placement of the screw in the femoral head (Laros and Moore 1974, Wolfgang et al 1982, Davis et al 1990). Currently, the compression hip screw (CHS), which allows impaction of the fracture, is commonest (Meislin et al 1990, Kyle et al 1994.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

RAB-plate vs Richards CHS plate for unstable trochanteric hip fractures: A randomized study of 233 patients with 1 -year follow-up

Buciuto¹,

Uhlin²,

Hammerby³

et al. 1998

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

RAB-plate vs Richards CHS plate for unstable trochanteric hip fractures: A randomized study of 233 patients with 1 -year follow-up

Buciuto¹,

Uhlin²,

Hammerby³

et al. 1998

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A higher prevalence of stable fractures has been reported by Kuderna et al, Hughston et al, Wilson et al and Wolfgang et al 5,[14][15][16] However Neilson et al reported a higher prevalence of unstable fractures in their studies. 17 We had 50% prevalence of both stable and unstable fractures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Comparative evaluation of dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail for fracture of intertrochanteric femur

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of the present study was to compare the result in terms of rate of union, time of ambulation and functional recovery of fracture intertrochanteric femur treated by dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral interlocking nail (PFN) and to compare complications in terms of implant failure, infection, blood loss and C arm exposure in both groups.Methods: This was a prospective study of 92 cases, 38 cases were treated by PFN and 54 cases were treated by DHS. Patients were followed up at 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks. The results were compared for functional outcome using Palmer and Parker score and also for various complications.Results: Comparison of mobility score at six month follow up period revealed the PFN group to be significantly more mobile (5.8 Vs. 4.19 respectively, p <0.001) than the DHS group. In our study 6 patients managed with DHS (6.52%) developed superficial wound infection which responded to intravenous antibiotics. No patient with PFN had wound infection. Only 2 patients in the PFN group and 12 patients in the DHS group had persistent pain at the incision site.Conclusions: Dynamic hip screw fixation of these fracture requires less preoperative time, is associated with less exposure to radiation but the blood loss is much higher. On the contrary PFN allows faster mobilization and greater mobility scores at six months.

show abstract

“…Wolfgang et al¹⁷ reported 79% stable and 21% unstable type fracture, Neilson, B.P. et al 18 reported 28% stable and 72% unstable trochanteric fracture, Larsson S, Friberg S et al 19 reported a series of 35% stable and 65% unstable trochanteric fracture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evaluation of Various Methods of Trochanteric Fracture Fixation and Their Comparison- A Prospective Study

Singh¹,

Gautam²,

Ahmed³

et al. 2019

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Trochanteric fractures are devastating injuries that most commonly affect the elderly and also the young; they have tremendous impact on both the health care system, and society in general. 1 The mainstay of the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures is fixation with DHS, intramedullary device, and proximal locking compression plate. The aim of the present study was to compare the result in terms of rate of union, time of ambulation and functional recovery of fracture intertrochanteric femur treated by either dynamic hip screw (DHS), proximal femoral interlocking nail (PFN) or proximal locking compression plate (PFLCP). METHODS This was a prospective study of 62 patients, 20 patients were treated by PFN (Group A), 32 cases were treated by DHS (Group B) and 10 cases treated by PFLCP (Group C). All Patients were followed up at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year. Results were compared for functional outcome by using Harris Hip Score. RESULTS Comparison of Harris hip score at 12-month-follow-up period revealed that PFN group to be significantly more mobile (PFN-94.8 vs. DHS-90.8 vs. PFLCP-89.3). p-Value for PFN vs. DHS group is 0.12, p value for PFN vs. PFLCP is 0.073 (>0.05) and p value for DHS vs. PFLCP is 1.00. All p values show insignificant difference in functional outcome of patients. It shows that most of patients achieved approximately same level of functional outcome at the end of one year. CONCLUSIONS PFN is a biomechanically good device for fixation of comminuted intertrochanteric fracture femur. PFN allows faster mobilization, early rehabilitation, lower implant failure rate, and faster union as compared to DHS and PFLCP. In our study, PFLCP seems to be feasible alternative to PFN and DHS in certain complex, unstable, comminuted trochanteric fractures when weight bearing was restricted till radiological signs of fractures healing are seen. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Singh G, Gautam S, Ahmed N, et al. Evaluation of various methods of trochanteric fracture fixation and their comparison-a prospective study.

show abstract

Trochanteric fractures treated by the McLaughlin nail and plate

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

RAB-plate vs Richards CHS plate for unstable trochanteric hip fractures: A randomized study of 233 patients with 1 -year follow-up

RAB-plate vs Richards CHS plate for unstable trochanteric hip fractures: A randomized study of 233 patients with 1 -year follow-up

Comparative evaluation of dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail for fracture of intertrochanteric femur

Evaluation of Various Methods of Trochanteric Fracture Fixation and Their Comparison- A Prospective Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About