Vol 6 | Issue 1 | Jan-Jun 2020 | page:22-25 – Ajay Surwade, Yashwant Mahale, Vikram Kadu
Author: Ajay Surwade , Yashwant Mahale , Vikram Kadu .
 Department of Orthopaedics, GMCH, Gondia, Maharashtra, India.
 Department of Orthopaedics, ACPMMC, Dhule, Maharashtra, India.
 Kadu Hospital, Katol, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Vikram Kadu,
Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Kadu Hospital, Katol, Maharashtra, India.
Background: Intertrochanteric fractures remains the common type of injuries amongst hip fracture. There are different types of classifications systems and different modalities for fixation available. Surgical treatment represents the optimal strategy for managing intertrochanteric fractures. It allows early mobilization rehabilitation and functional recovery and reduces the risk of postoperative complications.
Material and methods: Our study consisted of forty two cases of intertrochanteric fracture of femur treated surgically with BIAXIAL PLATE SYSTEM at our institute between July 2012- Dec 2014. Two patients were died within six months of operation so 40 patients were available for follow up. So anatomical and functional assessment of forty patients done.
Results: Anatomical results were assessed by presence or absence of shortening, deformity and range of movement. 95 % cases had good results and 5% cases had poor results with shortening more than 1cm in one case and limited hip movement in another case. Functional assessment of 40 patients were done by Harris hip score system and we got excellent result were noted in 12 cases, good in 23 cases, fair in 05 cases and none had poor results.
Conclusion: Osteosynthesis with Biaxial Plate offers the advantage of high rotational stability of the head-neck fragment. The advantage of fixation in two axis is, Increased torsional strength 10 times than DHS. Decreases coring out and loosening. Increased axial deforming strength 3 times than DHS. Decreases posterior and superior cut out.
Keywords: Intertrochanteric fracture; Biaxial plate system; Osteosynthesis; Indiginous implant.
1. Koval KJ, Aharonoff GB, Rokito AS, et al: Patient with femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures. Are they the same clinorthop: 1996: 330: 166-172.
2. campbells operative orthopaedics:2003:vol 3,10th edition ,2875
3. Rang M. Story of Orthopaedics. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders;.2000:373-395
4. Kaplan K, Miyamoto R, Levine BR, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD. Surgical management of hip fractures: an evidence-based review of the literature. II: intertrochanteric fractures. J Am AcadOrthop Surg. Nov 2008;16(11):665-73. [Medline].
5. Anglen JO, Baumgaertner MR, Smith WR, Tornetta Iii P, Ziran BH. Technical tips in fracture care: fractures of the hip. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:17-24. [Medline].
6. Dr. Ashok Desai; Biax Hip System;
7. Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer PF. Analysis of Six hundred and Twenty– two intertrochanteric Hip Fractures. J. Bone Joint Surg. 1979 March; 61-A: 216-21.
8. Dahl E. Mortality and life expectancy after hip fractures. ActaOrthop Scand. 1980 Feb; 51(1)163-70.
9. Kaufer H. Mechanics of the treatment of hip injuries
10. Grisso JA, Kelsey JI, Strom BL, and Chio GY. Risk factors for falls as a cause of hip fractures in women.New England journal of medicine. 1991; 324:1326-1331.
|How to Cite this article: Surwade A, Mahale Y, Kadu V | Prospective Study Of Inter-trochanteric Fractures Of Femur Treated With Biaxial Plate Fixation (hip Screw And Derotation Screw) With Indiginous Implant | Trauma International | January-June 2020; 6(1):22-25.|