Table 1.
The general characteristics of the included studies
|
Ref.
|
Study type
|
Center
|
Study period
|
Follow-up in mo
|
Number of patients
|
Average age in yr
|
Sex as male/female
|
Fracture type and n
|
Conclusion
|
|||
|
PFN
|
DCS
|
PFN
|
DCS
|
PFN
|
DCS
|
|||||||
| Şensöz et al[18], 2023 | Retrospective cohort | Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal City Hospital, Istanbul, Turky | Between 2013 and 2018 | At least 2 yr | 36 | 25 | 65.52 | 59.36 | 15/21 | 13/12 | A2.3 61 | DCS was superior to PFN in early fracture union time. However, it showed a higher nonunion rate. PFN showed shorter hospital stay time than DCS and is recommended to be applied in that fracture type |
| Jamil et al[14], 2022 | RCT | Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India | Between November 2019 to December 2021 | NA | 15 | 11 | 54.20 | 59.82 | 4/11 | 6/5 | A2.2 16/A2.3 10 | PFN showed better results than DCS regarding operative time, union rate, duration for fracture union, and rate of complications |
| Ghilzai et al[15], 2016 | RCT | Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan | February 2012 to August 2013 | NA | 21 | 19 | 80.00 | 77.00 | NA | NA | A2.2 21/A2.3 19 | PFN is superior to DCS in the treatment of proximal femur fractures type 31A3 |
| Sahin et al[19], 2014 | Retrospective cohort | Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Türkiye | Between January 2007 and December 2010 | At least 1 yr | 42 | 37 | 51.75 | 57.50 | 17/25 | 18/19 | A2.2 44/A2.3 35 | PFN is superior to DCS in the treatment of unstable peritrochanteric fractures, owing to its effect in reducing operative blood loss, and biological fixation achievement |
| Elis et al[20], 2012 | Retrospective cohort | Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel | Between January 2006 and July 2009 | At least 1 yr | 19 | 14 | 51.75 | 57.50 | 3/16 | 3/11 | A2.2 19/A2.3 14 | EPFN was as effective as DCS devices for the treatment of reverse oblique hip fractures |
| Sadowski et al[16], 2002 | RCT | University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland | Between March 1998 and June 1999 | At least 1 yr | 20 | 19 | 88.00 | 77.00 | 7/13 | 4/14 | A2.2 20/A2.3 19 | The results support the use of PFN rather than DCS for the treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures |
DCS: Dynamic condylar screws; EPFN: Expandable proximal femoral nail; NA: Not available; PFN: Proximal femoral nail; RCT: Randomized controlled trial.