title: Proximal femoral nail antirotation in treatment of fractures of proximal femur.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Fractures of the proximal femur and hip are relatively common injuries in adults and common source of morbidity and mortality among the elderly. Many methods have been recommended for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.
  
  
  METHODS
  We retrospective analyzed all the patients with fractures of the hip treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) at the Clinic of Orthopedic and Traumatology, University Clinical Centre Tuzla from the first of January 2012 to 31 December 2012 years. The study included 63 patients averaged 73.6 +/- 11.9 years (range, 29 to 88 years). Fracture type was classified as intertrochanteric (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen classification 31.A.1, A.2 and A.3) and subtrochanteric fractures (Seinsheimer classification).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The ratio between the genders female-male was 1.6:1. There was statistically significant difference prevalence of female compared to male patients (p = 0.012). There were 31 left and 32 right hip fractured. Low energy trauma was the cause of fractures in 57(90.5%) patients. Averaged waiting time for hospitalization was 3.2 +/- 7.5 days (range, 0 to 32 days). 44 patients were admitted the same day upon injuring. The average waiting time for the treatment was 3.6 +/- 5.7 days. The ratio between with or without co-existent disease was 4.7:1. During the three months postoperatively with ASA score 3 and 4 six patients died. There were no significant differences in deaths from ASA score 1 and 2 (p = 0.52). Reoperation for the treatment of implant or fracture-related complications was required in three (4.7%) patients (infection, reimplantation and extraction). Three patient developed deep vein thrombosis. Statistically significant difference was found in the deaths in the first three months compared to the next three months (p = 0.02). We found statistically significant difference between pre-injury and postoperative mobility score (p = 0.0001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  PFNA is an excellent device for osteosynthesis as it can be easily inserted. Moreover, it provides stable fixation, which allows early full weightbearing mobilization of the patient.
authors.forename: Sahmir
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sadic
authors.forename: Svemir
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Custovic
authors.forename: Mahir
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Jasarevic
authors.forename: Mirsad
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Fazlic
authors.forename: Nedim
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Smajic
authors.forename: Asmir
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Hrustic
authors.forename: Aleksandar
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Vujadinovic
authors.forename: Ferid
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Krupic
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015897:Comorbidity; D005260:Female; D005264:Femoral Fractures / Q000145:classification / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D005594:Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies