PFNA及倒置 LISS钢板治疗股骨近端骨折的对比研究

 目的探讨股骨近端螺旋刀片抗旋髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation blade,PFNA)和倒置股骨远端锁定接骨板(less invasive stabilization system,LISS)治疗股骨近端骨折合并髋内翻畸形患者的临床疗效并进行对比分析。方法回顾性分析 2007年 6月至 2010年 6月采用 PFNA和倒置 LISS钢板内固定治疗且随访时间超过 10个月的股骨近端骨折合并髋内翻畸形患者 46例的病例资料.采用 PFNA内固定治疗者 24例.采用倒置 LISS钢板内固定治疗者 22例。所有患者术后 6h开始不负重状态下功能锻炼。对比分析两组患者术前美国麻醉学会(American society of anesthesiologists,ASA)评分、手术时间和术中失血量、术后完全负重时间、骨折愈合时间、Parker-Palmer活动评分和颈干角角度丢失的情况。结果 所有患者获得 10~12个月随访.平均 11.2个月。两组术前 ASA评分、手术时间、术中失血量和末次随访 Parker-Palmer活动评分的差异均无统计学意义。倒置 LISS钢板组完全负重时间和骨折愈合时间较 PFNA组延长.颈干角角度丢失减少。结论 PFNA固定允许患者早期负重;但对于骨质疏松严重、内固定切割风险较高的患者.倒置 LISS钢板固定有助于降低术后髋内翻的发生率。     

股骨近端锁定解剖钢板和PFNA治疗老年股骨粗隆间粉碎性骨折的疗效比较

目的探讨股骨近端解剖锁定钢板（LCP）和股骨近端髓内钉一抗螺旋刀片（PFNA）治疗老年粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。方法将2009年1月至2012年12月收治的60岁以上的股骨粗隆间粉碎性骨折（EvansⅢ、Ⅳ型）患者共63例,平均年龄（78．7±7．8）岁,按照随机分组原则分为两组,LCD组患者采用股骨近端锁定解剖钢板固定,PFNA组采用PFNA固定。比较两组患者的平均手术时间、术中出血量、术后下地负重活动时间以及髋关节功能恢复情况。结果PFNA组手术时间、术中出血量、术后下地负重活动时间明显低于LCP组,Harris评分术后3个月差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,术后12个月差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论两种手术方法对于股骨粗隆间骨折均为有效的治疗措施,闭合复位PFNA内固定,手术简单,手术时间短,创伤小,骨折固定稳定,中远期疗效肯定,是较理想的治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的方法。     

A comparative study of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures treated with long proximal femoral nail antirotation or plate combinations

Objective: To compare the results of long proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA‐long) and plate combinations in the treatment of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. Methods: Between March 2004 and April 2009, 23 patients with ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures were treated with PFNA‐long or plate combinations. The patients were divided into two groups. Group I contained 13 patients who were treated with dynamic hip screws (DHS) combined with compression plate fixation. The 10 patients in Group II were treated with PFNA‐long. Results: The average follow‐up was 17.8 and 16.8 months for Groups I and II, respectively. The average union time for intertrochanteric fractures was 17.4 and 16.6 weeks in Groups I and II, respectively, and for femoral shaft fracture 22.2 and 21.5 weeks, respectively. There were nine good, two fair, and two poor functional results in Group I, and eight good, one fair, and one poor in Group II. There was nonunion of two femoral shaft fractures in Group I and one in Group II. There were no significant differences between the two groups in functional outcomes or major complications. Conclusion: Both treatment methods achieve satisfactory functional outcomes in patients with ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. PFNA‐long is the better choice for the treatment of complex fractures, having the advantages of minimal exposure, reduced perioperative blood loss, and achievement of biological fixation of both fractures with a single implant.     

Reverse LISS plates for unstable proximal femoral fractures

The best treatment for unstable proximal femoral fractures is controversial. In this prospective study, we assessed the outcomes of reverse less invasive stabilisation system (LISS) plates for treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures that are expected to be difficult to nail.From April 2004 to January 2007, 20 patients with unstable proximal femoral fractures that were assessed to be difficult to nail were managed with reverse less invasive stabilisation system-distal femur (LISS-DF) plates, which included (1) subtrochanteric fractures with extension into the piriform fossa, (2) short skeletons with narrow femoral canals, (3) adolescents with open physes and (4) severely bowed or deformed femurs. These patients were enrolled in this study. There were 11 females and nine males, with a median age of 58 years (range, 14-95 years).The average follow-up period was 24 (range, 12-32) months. Functional recovery (Parker and Palmer mobility score), pain, bony union, varus deformity, implant failure and leg length discrepancy were assessed. The fractures united at a median of 7 months (range, 3-15 months) postoperatively. Parker and Palmer mobility scores were 9 points for 17 patients and 6 points for three patients. Pain was absent in 15, mild in three, and moderate in two patients. Patients with poor quality of reduction were more likely to have pain results (p = 0.009). Although patients with advanced age were not more likely to have pain results, they were more likely to have ‘delayed union’ radiographic results (p = 0.033). Two limbs were shortened by 1.5 and 2 cm, respectively.Reverse LISS plate fixation led to complete union of unstable proximal femoral fractures without additional procedures. The surgical technique was simple and safe. We recommend considering the use of this locked-plate device as the alternative management of unstable proximal femoral fractures that are unsuitable for nailing procedures.     

加长版PFNA治疗股骨转子间骨折合并股骨干骨折的临床疗效研究

【摘要】 目的 研究重建钉和加长型PFNA用于股骨转子间骨折合并股骨干骨折治疗的临床疗效研究。方法 选取2012年1月~2014年6月到我院就诊并住院治疗的股骨转子间骨折合并骨干骨折的患者共60例为研究对象,分为两组: 为重建钉组和加长组,分别采用重建钉和加长型PFNA进行治疗,比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、伤口长度、并发症、Harris评分、Lyshonlm评分。结果〓加长组的术中出血量、伤口长度均高于重建钉组(P<0.05),加长组的股骨转子间骨折的愈合时间和股骨干骨折的愈合时间也短于重建钉组(P<0.05),但两组手术时间差异无统计学意义。所有患者中只有一例发生切口感染,无其他严重并发症发生。加长组的Harris评分在术后各时间点均高于重建钉组,而Lyshonlm评分从术后第二个月开始之后的各时间点均低于重建钉组(P<0.05),但术后两周两组的Lyshonlm评分差异无统计学意义。结论 加长型PFNA用于股骨转子间骨折合并股骨干骨折治疗的临床疗效较好,患者恢复更快。     

两种内固定治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效比较

目的 比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)与新一代髓内钉(InterTAN)治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效.方法 将96例股骨转子间骨折患者按照随机数字表法分为PFNA组和InterTAN组,各48例.比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、骨折愈合时间、扶拐时间、术后6个月Harris髋关节评分以及术后并发症.结果 患者均获...     

股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年人髋部骨折疗效的多因素分析

目的研究股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效,并分析影响预后的因素。方法 76例股骨粗隆间骨折患者接受PFNA内固定治疗,记录患者一般情况、骨折类型、手术时间、术中出血量、围手术期并发症,患侧髋关节Harris评分。结果术后并发症发生率:表浅软组织感染2.6%(2例),心脑血管意外3.9%(3例),肺炎6.6%(5例),老年谵妄15.8%(12例),术后DVT 5.3%(4例),应激性溃疡2.6%(2例)。多因素回归分析显示年龄、骨折稳定性(股骨内后侧皮质)、ASA评分是骨折愈合后髋关节功能的预测因子(P=0.032,P=0.032,P=0.038),性别、入院后早期手术、手术时间与Harris评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 PFNA内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折创伤较小,但围手术期仍有较多并发症。骨折稳定性、患者年龄、ASA评分与骨折愈合后髋关节功能相关。     

PFLCP与PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效比较

目的回顾总结应用股骨近端锁定加压接骨板(proximal femur locking compression plate,PFLCP)与股骨近端螺旋刀片抗旋髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation blade,PFNA)两种手术内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效并进行对比分析。方法从2008年7月至2011年10月,收治股骨粗隆间骨折56例,随机分为两组,一组采用PFLCP内固定,另一组采用PFNA内固定。术后分析手术时间、伤口大小、失血量、完全负重时间、骨折愈合时间及内固定位置情况,并通过Harris功能评分评价下肢功能。结果两组顺利完成手术,术后均定期完成随访,平均随访12个月(8～18个月)。PFNA组在切口长度、术后负重时间均优于PFLCP组(P<0.05),两组在手术时间、术中失血量、骨折愈合时间方面比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PFLCP组出现2例髋内翻、螺钉松动退出、股骨大粗隆滑囊炎,PFNA组2例分别出现颈干角丢失、螺钉切出股骨头和下肢轻度短缩、螺钉稍退出。结论 PFNA和PFLCP两种内固定在股骨粗隆间骨折治疗中均具有较好疗效,PFNA固定允许患者早期负重,两种内固定均具有自己的优势。     

防旋股骨近端髓内针与股骨近端解剖锁定钢板治疗转子间骨折的疗效比较

目的探讨防旋股骨近端髓内针(PFNA)和股骨近端解剖锁定钢板(LPFP)治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效。方法 老年股骨转子间骨折患者61例,分别采用PFNA(A组,31例)和LPFP进行手术治疗(B组,30例)。观察并比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后下地活动时间及术后髋关节功能Harris评分。结果 61例患者均获随访,时间10~23个月。两种手术方法手术时间、术中出血量、术后下地活动时间及术后1个月的髋关节评分比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),术后3个月及术后1年髋关节评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论两种方法均适用于转子间骨折,PFNA相对于LPFP具有手术时间短、术中出血少、术后髋关节功能恢复快等优点。     

Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail

Introduction The advantages of intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures over dynamic screw-plate devices in the clinical setting are still a matter of debate. We performed a case series study in a teaching hospital to analyse the results of the recent AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN).Materials and methods Between July 1998 and May 2001, 46 consecutive patients (47 fractures) were included in the investigation. The average patient age was 76.4 years (range 50–93 years), and most fractures (74.5%) were unstable. Operative details, adequacy of fracture reduction, screw position in the femoral head, re-operations, and postoperative complications were documented. Functional results were evaluated by the Parker and Palmer mobility score and Barthel Index for patients with a minimum follow-up of 4 months.Results Intraoperative technical or mechanical complications occurred in 11 patients (23.4%), mostly problems with the distal nail locking and fracture of the lateral wall of the greater trochanter. Mean surgical time was 83.4 min. The lateral protrusion of screws causing thigh pain was the most common postoperative complication, with an incidence of 21.2%. There was only one femoral shaft fracture at the nail tip caused by a fall at 9 months of follow-up. Five patients (10.6%) had intra-articular migration of screws, which was associated with loss of reduction and varus collapse in one case. There were 2 persistent deep infections and 2 haematomas that required surgical drainage. The re-operation rate was 19.1%, mainly cephalic screw removal due to lateral protrusion at the proximal thigh. Ten patients (32.2%) fully recovered their Parker and Palmer mobility score, and 20 patients (66.6%) recovered more than 90% of their pre-injury Barthel Index values. The average limb shortening was 14 mm. Mortality rate during the observation period was 20.4%.Conclusion In view of only one loss of reduction with varus collapse clearly caused by a technical error, we concluded that the PFN is a suitable implant for unstable fractures, but the high re-operation rate precludes its routine use for every pertrochanteric fracture.     

三种内固定方法(PFNA、LPFP、DHS)治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的比较

目的比较应用股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)、股骨近端锁定板(LPFP)和动力髋螺钉(DHS)内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的手术疗效。方法回顾性分析123例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者的临床资料,比较三种术式平均手术时间、术中出血量、术中术后输血量、住院时间以及术后功能恢复方面的差异。结果 PFNA组较其他两组在手术时间、术中出血量、术中术后输血量方面优势明显(P<0.05);LPFP组优于DHS组,但两组间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。平均住院时间:PFNA组(17.77±5.30)d;LPFP组(19.90±6.58)d;DHS组(25.72±10.85)d;术后髋关节功能优良率:PFNA组84.62%;LPFP组85.00%;DHS组78.57%。结论三种内固定方法治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折,均可获得满意的临床疗效。其中PFNA具有手术时间短、术中出血量少的优点;PFNA、LPFP两组在住院时间和术后髋关节功能恢复方面优于DHS组。     

股骨近端防旋髓内钉和Gamma钉治疗老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折疗效比较

目的比较股骨近端髓内钉和Gamma钉治疗老年不稳定股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法将133例老年不稳定股骨转子间骨折患者按内固定方法分为股骨近端髓内钉(PFNA)组55例和Gamma钉组78例。比较两组的手术技巧、术后并发症、骨折愈合情况和髋关节功能。结果两组患者均获随访,时间6~18个月。两组在手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合情况及髋关节功能(末次随访Harris评分)比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。Gamma钉组出现2例髋螺钉切割,1例远端锁钉断裂,1例股骨干骨折;PFNA组无相关并发症发生。结论 PFNA和Gamma钉均是治疗老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折的理想方法。与Gamma钉相比,PFNA显著降低了术后并发症,更适用于治疗老年骨质疏松性不稳定型股骨转子间骨折。     

PFNA与InterTAN髓内钉治疗不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折疗效的比较

目的 :分析比较PFNA与Inter TAN在老年不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效及相关并发症。方法:2012年4月至2014年2月采用PFNA和Inter TAN治疗老年不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折113例,其中PFNA组64例,男25例,女39例,年龄66~85岁,平均(73.3±6.5)岁。Inter TAN组49例,男20例,女29例,年龄65~85岁,平均(74.2±5.4)岁;按股骨粗隆间骨折AO分型,PFNA组(A2型48例,A3型16例);Inter TAN组(A2型37例,A3型12例);受伤至手术时间为3~8 d,平均(4.7±1.2)d。比较患者术中出血量、手术时间、透视时间、股骨外侧壁骨折、骨折愈合时间、股骨干骨折、股骨头螺钉切出、股骨头坏死、股骨颈短缩及末次随访髋关节功能Harris评分。结果:PFNA组58例、InterTAN组44例患者获得随访,时间14~18个月,平均(16.3±1.2)个月;随访期间,患者伤口愈合良好;PFNA组术中出血量、手术时间及术中透视时间明显少于Inter TAN组(P0.05);在股骨干骨折、头钉切出、股骨颈短缩发生率方面,InterTAN较PFNA更有优势(P0.05)。末次随访PFNA组Harris髋关节功能评分为90.7±5.1,Inter TAN组为90.4±3.9,,两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:Inter TAN具有较强的抗旋作用,更适合患者早期负重,降低髋关节内翻、头钉切出及股骨颈短缩等并发症发生率;但对于身体耐受能力差、骨质疏松的患者,PFNA更适宜。由于随访时间不长,其远期疗效尚需进一步观察研究。     

三种手术方法治疗老年性股骨颈及股骨粗隆间骨折的临床效果比较

目的：研究适合老年性股骨颈及股骨粗隆间骨折治疗和减少并发症发生的方法。方法：采用回顾性分析的方法,选取我院2019年12月—2021年12月收治的246例老年股骨颈及股骨粗隆间骨折患者,按照骨折类型将其分成接受股骨颈动力交叉钉系统治疗组（FNS组,24例）、股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗组（PFNA组,49例）及动力型加压髋螺钉组（DHS组,173例）,比较三组临床治疗后的并发症发生率、手术时间、骨折愈合时间、术中出血量、生活质量评分及术后活动能力评分比较。结果：股骨颈动力交叉钉系统治疗组所造成的创伤比较小,手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率均显著低于股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗组和动力型加压髋螺钉组（P<0.05）,而股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗组与动力型加压髋螺钉组比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;股骨颈动力交叉钉系统治疗组的生活质量评分及活动能力评分高于其他两组（P<0.05）。结论：FNS适用于一型和二型股骨颈骨折的患者,DHS适用于大粗隆外侧皮质完整的患者,PFNA适用于骨折累及粗隆、大粗隆下骨质的患者。     

两种方法治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效比较

目的比较防旋股骨近端髓内钉(PFNA)与股骨转子间顺行髓内钉(InterTAN)治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效。方法将141例老年股骨转子间骨折患者根据内固定材料不同分为PFNA组(87例,采用PFNA治疗)和InterTAN组(54例,采用InterTAN治疗)。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后输血例数、输血量、骨折愈合时间、内固定相关并发症发生例数、末次随访Harris评分等级、术后下肢深静脉血栓(DVT)发生率。结果手术时间PFNA组短于InterTAN组(P<0.05)。两组术中出血量、术后输血例数和输血量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者均获得随访,时间6~18个月。骨折均骨性愈合,骨折愈合时间PFNA组长于InterTAN组(P<0.05)。两组末次随访Harris评分等级、术后下肢DVT发生率及内固定相关并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论PFNA与InterTAN均为治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的理想选择,PFNA手术时间更短,而InterTAN术后骨折愈合时间更短。     

动力髋螺钉与股骨近端髓内钉治疗不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折的临床比较

目的：比较动力髋螺钉（ DHS）和股骨近端髓内钉（ PFNA）两种内固定治疗不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。方法自2008年5月至2013年4月间对95例老年股骨粗隆间不稳定型骨折患者进行回顾性研究,患者分为DHS组45例与PFNA组50例,比较两组的手术时间,术中出血量,下地行走时间,骨折愈合时间及髋关节功能等数据。结果 PFNA组和DHS组在手术时间,术中出血量,下地行走时间有显著差异,而在骨折愈合时间无明显差异,对于不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折, PFNA组的髋关节功能优良率高于DHS组。结论对于不稳定的股骨粗隆间骨折,PFNA系统具有出血少,手术时间短,恢复快等的优点。     

大牵开器辅助下防旋股骨近端髓内钉内固定治疗股骨转子间骨折手术技术与疗效

目的:探讨在无牵床下大牵开器辅助维持复位使用防旋股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的手术技术和疗效。方法:自2012年4月至2016年12月采用大牵开器辅助维持复位下PFNA内固定治疗55例股骨转子间骨折患者,男18例,女37例;年龄47～90岁,平均75.65岁;左侧31例,右侧24例。术前患髋疼痛、活动受限,下肢极度外旋畸形或伴有短缩,术前X线片均明确骨折。记录手术时间、术中出血量及术中透视时间,评价髋关节功能。结果:手术时间平均45.35 min,术中出血量平均117.64 ml,术中透视时间平均3.42 min,骨折均复位良好。55例患者术后获得随访,时间12～24个月,平均16.43个月。所有患者骨性愈合,无髋内翻畸形,内固定松动、断裂等并发症。根据Harris髋关节功能评分,优40例,良8例,可5例,差2例。结论:大牵开器辅助维持复位下使用PFNA能固定各型股骨转子间骨折,对手术体位要求简单,设备要求低,手术时间短,创伤小,固定可靠,患者术后恢复好,该手术方式可在无牵引床的基层医院开展。     

骨水泥强化型股骨近端防旋髓内钉固定治疗严重骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折

目的探讨骨水泥强化型股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)固定治疗严重骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折的临床效果。方法回顾性分析2016年1月至2017年6月期间漯河医学高等专科学校第二附属医院骨科收治的23例严重骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折患者资料。男9例,女14例;年龄为80~91岁,平均85.3岁。骨折AO/OTA-2018版分型:31-A1.3型2例,31-A2.2型5例,31-A2.3型13例,31-A3.3型3例。骨质疏松按Singh标准分级:1级4例,2级16例,3级3例。所有患者均采用骨水泥强化型PFNA固定。记录患者的手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生情况、骨折愈合时间及末次随访时髋关节Harris评分等。结果本组患者的手术时间平均为56.3 min(47~91 min),术中出血量平均为197 mL(110~450 mL)。23例患者术后获平均14.7个月(5~27个月)随访。1例患者于术后5个月因急性化脓性梗阻性胆管炎而死亡,该患者死亡前根据髋关节Harris评分标准评定疗效为良。23例患者术后骨折均获骨性愈合,愈合时间平均为11.3周(8~18周)。末次随访时根据髋关节Harris评分标准评定疗效:优11例,良10例,可2例,优良率为91.3%。随访期间无一例患者发生骨折不愈合、股骨头缺血性坏死及髓内钉断裂等并发症。结论骨水泥强化型PFNA固定治疗严重骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折,可提高螺钉把持力,降低内固定物失效风险,近期疗效良好。     

防旋型股骨近端髓内钉治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床研究

[目的]探讨防旋型股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)治疗股骨转子间骨折的手术方式及临床疗效。[方法]统计2007～2009年,采用PFNA治疗42例股骨转子间骨折患者。按Evans-Jensen标准分型,准确记录每例患者的手术时间、股骨近端切口长度、术中失血量、术后并发症情况、术后下床部分负重时间及术后半年髋关节Harris功能评分后进行统计学分析。[结果]42例患者中的39例获得6～25个月的随访。4种骨折类型在手术时间、术中失血量、术后下床部分负重时间上相比差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),表现为随骨折复杂程度的增加,手术难度亦逐渐加大,并且术后负重时间均相应延长。但在手术切口长度、术后并发症情况及术后Harris功能评分相比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后半年按髋关节Harris功能评分:优13例,良18例,中6例,差2例,优良率为79.4%。[结论]PFNA治疗股骨转子间骨折固定可靠,初期临床疗效满意,但对于骨折类型复杂的转子间骨折,其操作具有一定难度,医源性创伤亦较大,行有限切开复位骨折并加以辅助性固定有利于预防术后髋内翻并发症的发生。     

Use of trochanteric nail for proximal femoral extracapsular fractures

Proximal femoral extracapsular fractures have shown a significantly high morbidity and mortality rate at 1 year in cases of nonoperative treatment. The standard gamma nail was originally designed to provide stable fixation and allow early mobilization and weight bearing for elderly patients. The design of the standard gamma nail, however, appears to be associated with intraoperative or postoperative femoral shaft fractures in < or = 17% of patients, compromising the outcome. The trochanteric nail was developed to overcome the problems encountered with the use of the standard gamma nail. Between July 2000 and January 2001, 88 consecutive proximal femoral extracapsular fractures were treated with a trochanteric nail, Seventy-five patients (76 fractures) were observed clinically and radiographically for 2 years.