Aim: Aim of the study is to analyze and compare the functional outcomes and compare the advantages, disadvantages and possible complications associated with fixation of two different surgical modalities, PFN and bipolar prosthesis in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Background: Elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures should be mobilized early to reduce the morbidity and mortality. While cemented bipolar prosthesis allows early weight bearing, the prolonged surgical time increase the blood loss and mortality, whereas with PFN once the fracture becomes stable it allows early mobilization thus overcoming the problems of recumbency.

Methodology: A Prospective Comparative Study was conducted in 30 elderly patients who were admitted and operated between July 2017 to April 2018 and had fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. They were allocated into two groups 15 patients each for PFN and bipolar prosthesis. Harris hip score was used for assessment of the results of surgery. The results thus obtained were analysed and compared.

Results: The demographic and background data of the patients in the two groups were statistically similar. At 9 months follow up PFN group patients had a mean HHS of 85.5 and bipolar prosthesis group had a mean HHS of 79.9. Pain, severity and range of hip movements were better in PFN group than bipolar prosthesis group. Radio logically 2 patients in bipolar prosthesis group had stem loosening and 1 patients had screw cut out in the PFN group with subsequent pain in the final follow up.

Conclusion: PFN is a better option for the treatment of elderly intertrochanteric fractures as the operative time is short, relative surgical ease and has less mortality. PFN also gives a better functional outcome in the late follow up than bipolar prosthesis.

Keywords: Intertrochanteric fracture, Elderly patients, PFN, Biopolar prosthesis, Harris hip score.

1. Punit J. Tank, Dr. Rajesh A. Solanki , Dr. Harshadkumar A. Patel, Dr. Nirav Rathi, Dr. Janak Mistry, Dr. Hiren B. Bhabhor. Results of Proximal Femoral Nail in Intertrochanteric Fracture of Femur. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS),17-24(15), 2016.
2. Jenson js. Trochanteric fractures. An epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study, Actaorthop. Scandinavica. Supplimentum, 1981.
3. Pu JS, Liu L, Wang GL, Fang Y, Yang TF. Results of the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in elderly Chinese patients.IntOrthop2009;33:1441-1444.
4. NS Rajarajan.A comparative study of treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures with PFN and cemented hemiarthroplasty. International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences 2018; 4(2): 111-115.
5. Green S, Moore T, Proano F. Bipolar prosthetic replacement for the management of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; 224:169-77.
6. Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, et al. The proximal femoral nail (PFN)la minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(1):53-58 (PubMed).
7. Menezes DF, Gamulin A, Noesberger B.Is the proximal bfemoral nail a suitable implant for treatment of all trochanteric fractures? ClinOrthopRelat Res2005,439: 221-227.
8. Ansari Moein CM, Verhofstad MHJ, Bleys RLAW, van der Werken C .Soft tissue injury related to the choice of entry point in ante grade femoral nailing; pyriform fossa or greater trochanter tip. Injury 2005, 36: 1337-1342.
9. Gadegone WM, Salphale YS . Proximal femoral nail-an analysis of 100 cases of proximal femoral fractures with an average follow up of 1 year. IntOrthop2007,31: 403-408.
10. Pavelka T, Houcek P, Linhart M, Matejka J. Osteosynthesis of hip and femoral shaft fractures using the PFN-long. Acta ChirOrthop TraumatolCech 2007;74:91-8.
11. Rodop O, Kiral A, Kaplan H, Akmaz I. Primary Bipolar hemirosthesis for unstable inter-tro9chanteric fracture .IntOrthop 2002,26,233-7.
12. Astvaldur J Arthursson, Ove Furnes, Birgitte Espehaug, Leif I Havelin, and Jon Arne Söreide.Prosthesis survival after total hip arthroplasty—does surgical approach matter? Analysis of 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. ActaOrthopaedica 2007; 78 (6): 719–729.
13. Kayali C, Agus H, Ozluk S, Sanli C. Treatment for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients: Internal fixation versus cone hemiarthroplasty. J Orthop Sure (Hong Kong) 2006;14:240-4.
14. Sancheti K, Sancheti P, Shyam A, Patil S, Dhariwal Q, Joshi R. Primary hemiarthroplasty for unstable osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly: A retrospective case series. Indian J Orthop 2010;44:428-34.
15. Elsayed E. Saoudy, Adel M. Salama. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of unstable trochanteric fracture femur in the elderly, The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal 2016, 51:313–318.

Dr Lokesh Kumar Yogi

Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad (MH)

Mob.7083208622, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.