The Comparison of Dynamic Condylar Screw Plate to Proximal Femoral Nail in Reverse Oblique and Transverse Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Retrospective Study on 61 Patients

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 15; no. 3; p. e36397
• Main Authors: Şensöz, Ersin, Ergun, Selim, Kayaalp, Mahmut Enes, Eceviz, Engin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Cureus Inc 20-03-2023; Cureus
• Subjects: Biomechanics; Debridement; Hip joint; Infections; Open fractures; Orthopedics; Patients; Surgeons; Surgery; Trauma; Istanbul Turkey; Turkey; open fracture reduction; intramedullary; hip fractures; fracture fixation; reverse oblique
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.36397

Reverse oblique (RO) and transverse intertrochanteric fracture patterns constitute a challenge for the operating surgeon. Currently, no gold standard fixation method exists. This study aimed to retrospectively compare proximal femoral nail (PFN) to dynamic condylar screw (DCS) plating in the treatment of RO and transverse intertrochanteric fractures.
A total of 61 patients fixated by PFN or DCS were included. Of these, 36 were treated with PFN (21 females and 15 males; mean age: 65.52 years), and 25 were treated with DCS (12 females and 13 males; mean age: 59.36 years). The mean follow-up time was 33.8 and 42.6 months (range: 24-108). Radiological evaluation included the quality of fracture reduction, neck-shaft angle change, posteromedial support presence, and bone union time. Complications such as mechanical failure, nonunion, and infection were noted.
The only significant differences between the fixation methods were the superiority of DCS over PFN in earlier fracture union time (mean values: 8.9 versus 14.1 weeks) and the superiority (p=0.007) of PFN in shorter hospital stay (3.4 days versus 5.1 days). No significant difference was observed in radiological parameters. While similar mechanical complication rates were found, a significantly higher nonunion rate was detected with the DCS.
The most crucial disadvantage of DCS was the high rate of nonunion. Closed fracture reduction in PFN seems to be the most critical parameter to prevent severe complications. The open reduction using DCS showed no advantages over closed reduction and PFN fixation in providing a more anatomical alignment in AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) 31-A3 fractures. However, we recommend PFN application in this type of fracture, since nonunion is more common in DCS.