Comparison of clinical outcomes with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures: A meta-analysis. Issue 6 (10th February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Cong; Chen, Zhangxin; Wang, Mengyuan; Chen, Wei; Ding, Zhenqi
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 102:Issue 6(2023)
• Page Start: e32920
• Publication Date: 2023-02-10
• Subjects: dynamic hip screw -- meta-analysis -- proximal femoral nail anti-rotation -- unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032920
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS) for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures, including the available evidence drawn from the literature. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify available and relevant randomized controlled trials and retrospective comparative observational studies regarding PFNA compared against DHS in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus Online up to February 12, 2022. Data from the included studies were extracted independently by 2 reviewers and analyzed using RevMan 5.3, and the quality of the studies was assessed. Results: Five randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies were recruited and met the inclusion criteria, which consisted of 1332 patients with PFNA and 1271 patients with DHS. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the DHS, PFNA exhibited a beneficial role in postoperative Harris Hip Scores, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, fracture healing time and full weight-bearing time, limb shortening, cutout, reoperation, union problems, the varus collapse of the femoral head/neck, and infection; however, DHS was superior to PFNA in hidden blood loss (relative risk [RR] = 139.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] [136.18, 143.43], P < .00001), postoperation drainage (RR = −17.85, 95% CI [−30.10, −5.60], P = .004), total blood loss (RR = 50.34, 95% CI [42.99, 57.69], P < .00001), and femoral shaft fracture (RR = 4.72, 95% CI [1.15, 19.32], P = .03) treated by DHS were significantly decreased, compared with those by PFNA; however, no significant differences were observed in tip–apex distance, fixation failures, screw migration, or other complicants between the 2 surgical methods. Conclusion: Analysis of a large number of relevant clinical indicators available shows that PFNA has better clinical manifestation than DHS in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.