Functional Outcome of Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in the Treatment of Unstable Proximal Femoral Fractures in Adult Patients

  • Hamidullah Kakar Department of Orthopaedics, Bolan Teaching Hospital Quetta
  • Karim Bakhsh Department of Orthopaedics, Bolan Teaching Hospital Quetta
  • Amanullah Khan Kakar Department of Orthopaedics, Bolan Teaching Hospital Quetta
  • Nasir Khan Achakzai Department of Orthopaedics, Bolan Teaching Hospital Quetta

Abstract

Objective: To determine the functional outcome of dynamic condylar screw in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures in adult patients.


Methods: This descriptive study was conducted in Department of Orthopedics, Bolan teaching hospital Quetta from January 2017 to December 2018.All adults patients of proximal femoral fractures meeting the inclusion criteria were fixed with dynamic condylar screw(DCS).Post operatively functional outcome was assessed Harris Hip Score.


Results: We operated 147 patients with mean age of patients 54.26 ± 5.14 years. The male to females ratio was 1.94:1. Post operative functional outcome was excellent in 69(46.4%) patients, good in 58(39.45%), fair in 12(8.16%) and poor in 8(5.44%) patients. Post operatively Harris Hip score was excellent(>90) in 69(46.94%) patients, Good score ( 80-89 ) in 58 (39.45%) patients ,Fair score(70-79) in 12(8.16%) patients and poor score(<70) in 8(5.44%) patients.Non union was reported in only 3(2.04%) patients.


Conclusion: Unstable proximal femoral fractures fixed with Dynamic Condylar Screw(DCS) results in excellent and good functional outcome in majority of patients. We therefore recommend DCS as a suitable alternative to intramedullary implants to treat subtrochanteric fractures.

References

1. Court-Brown CM. The epidemiology of fractures and dislocations. In: Heckman JD, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM, Ricci WM, Tornetta III P, editors. Rockwood and Green’s Fractures in Adults, 8th edition. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2015. p.61-108.
2. Bukhari SAH, Asghar A. Dynamic condylar screw fixation for comminuted proximal femur fractures. J Surg Pak Int 2011;16 (4):149-52.
3. Thakar C, Alsousou J, Hamilton TW, Willett K. The cost and consequences of proximal femoral fractures which require further surgery following initial fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010 ;92(12):1669-77.
4. Dhamangaonkar AC, Joshi D, Goregaonkar AB, Tawari AA. Proximal femoral locking plate versus dynamic hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2013 ;21(3):317-22.
5. Laghari MA,Makhdoom A, Pahore MK, Memon A. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures treated by condylar plate, A study of 56 cases. JLUMHS May-August 2012;11(2):54-59.
6. Patil SV, Rajale S. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures treated by fixation with dynamic condylar screw. Arch Applied Sci Res.2014;6 (3):94-101.
7. Sahin S,Ertürer E, Oztürk I, Toker S,Seçkin F, Akman S.Radiographic and functional results of osteosynthesis using the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc.2010;44(2):127-34.
8. ?ahin EK, ?merci A, K?n?k H, Karap?nar L, Canbek U, Savran A. Comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) with AO dynamic condylar screws (DCS) for the treatment for unstable peritrochanteric femoral fractures. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. 2014;24(3):347.
9. Patel R, Menon H, Chaudhari N, Chaudhari V. Subtrochanteric femur fractures treated with extramedullary or intramedullary fixation at tertiary care centre. International Journal. 2017;6(2):226.
10. Mousa SS. Results of biological fixation for subtrochanteric femoral fractures with a beveled dynamic condylar screw. The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal 2014;49(2):140.
11. Shah SN, Maniar PP, Moradiya NP, Patel KC, Gawatre PR. Outcome evaluation of dynamic condylar screw fixation for subtrochanteric femur fracture. International Journal of Orthopaedics 2017;3(1):351-5.
12. Kulkarni SG, Sekhri A, Malve SP, Kulkarni MG, Kulkarni V, Prajapati N. Intramedullary Nailing Versus Dynamic Condylar Screw for Subtrochanteric Femur Fractures. Journal of Trauma 2015;10(4):10-5.
13. Vashisht D, Sreen S, Daroch MS, Alawadhi K. Dynamic condylar screws versus 95º angle blade plate fixation of subtrochantric fractures of femur. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.2017;26(5):2040-5.
14. Neogi DS, Trikha V, Mishra KK, Rohilla N, Yadav CS. Biological plate fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures with the Dynamic Condylar Screw: A clinical study. Acta Orthopædica Belgica. 2009 ;75(4):497.
15. Pakuts A. Unstable subtrochanteric fractures-gamma nail versus dynamic condylar screw. International Orthopaedics 2004;28(1):21-4.
16. Kuzyk PR, Bhandari M, McKee MD, Russell TA, Schemitsch EH. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for subtrochanteric femur fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2009;23(6):465-70.
17. Rohilla R, Singh R, Magu NK, Siwach RC, Sangwan SS. Mini-incision dynamic condylar screw fixation for comminuted subtrochanteric hip fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2008 ;16(2):150-5.
18. Umair M, Akram R, Ahmed A, Ahmed I, Zaman AU, Ahmed N et al. Evaluation of tip apex distance in predicting implant failure in stable intertrochanteric fractures of femur managed by dynamic hip screw. Pak J Surg 2017;33(4):296-300.
Published
2019-06-25
How to Cite
KAKAR, Hamidullah et al. Functional Outcome of Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in the Treatment of Unstable Proximal Femoral Fractures in Adult Patients. Journal of Pakistan Orthopaedic Association, [S.l.], v. 31, n. 1, p. 20-24, june 2019. ISSN 2076-8966. Available at: <http://jpoa.org.pk/index.php/upload/article/view/297>. Date accessed: 13 oct. 2019.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.