uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Functional outcome in treatment of unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures with the proximal femoral nail and the Medoff sliding plate
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics. (Ortopedi)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences. (Ortopedi)
Show others and affiliations
2007 (English)In: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, ISSN 0890-5339, E-ISSN 1531-2291, Vol. 21, no 1, 18-25 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: To compare outcome between the proximal femoral nail (PFN) and the Medoff sliding plate (MSP) in patients with unstable trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures.

Methods: This was a consecutive prospective randomized clinical study. In all, 203 patients admitted to two university hospitals with an unstable trochanteric or a subtrochanteric fracture type were included. Surgery was performed with a short intramedullary nail or a dual-sliding plate device. Follow up visits occurred at 6 weeks, 4 months, and 12 months. Functional outcome was measured by walking ability, rising from a chair, curb test, and additional assessments of abductor strength, pain, living conditions, and complications.

Results: The ability to walk 15 m at 6 weeks was significantly better in the PFN group compared to the MSP group with an odds ratio 2.2 (P = 0.04, 95% confidence limits 1.03-4.67). No statistical difference in walking ability could be found between trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. The major complication rate (8% in the PFN group and 4% in the MSP group) did not differ statistically (P = 0.50) but reoperations were more frequent in the PFN group (9%) compared to the MSP group (1%; P < 0.02).

Conclusions: There were no major differences in functional outcome or major complications between the treatment groups. Reasons other than the operated fracture seem to be equally important in determining the long-term functional ability of the patients in our study. An advantage with the MSP was the lower reoperation rate.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. Vol. 21, no 1, 18-25 p.
Keyword [en]
Aged, Aged; 80 and over, Bone Nails, Bone Plates, Equipment Design, Equipment Failure Analysis, Female, Femoral Fractures/complications/diagnosis/*surgery, Fracture Fixation; Internal/*instrumentation/methods, Gait, Humans, Joint Instability/diagnosis/etiology/*prevention & control, Male, Middle Aged, Recovery of Function, Treatment Outcome
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-14800DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31802b41cfISI: 000243606400004PubMedID: 17211264OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-14800DiVA: diva2:42571
Available from: 2008-01-31 Created: 2008-01-31 Last updated: 2017-12-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17211264&dopt=Citation

Authority records BETA

Larsson, SuneRagnarsson, Björn

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Larsson, SuneRagnarsson, Björn
By organisation
OrthopaedicsDepartment of Surgical Sciences
In the same journal
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 380 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf