Comparative Analysis of Proximal Femoral Nailing and External Fixation in the Management of Trochanteric Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Background: Trochanteric fractures of the femur are common injuries in the elderly, often associated with osteoporosis and low-energy trauma, though they may also occur in younger individuals following high-energy injuries. Surgical management is essential to restore function and reduce complications. Among available techniques, Proximal Femoral Nailing (PFN) has emerged as the preferred internal fixation method, while External Fixation (EF) remains an alternative, particularly in high-risk or resource-limited settings. This study aimed to compare outcomes of PFN and EF in the management of trochanteric fractures. Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Orthopedics, Era’s Lucknow Medical College & Hospital, over 24 months. A total of 80 patients aged >18 years with trochanteric fractures were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups: Group A (EF, n=40) and Group B (PFN, n=40). Outcomes assessed included union rate, operative parameters, cost, functional outcomes using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), limb shortening, range of motion, and complications. Data were analyzed using SPSS v25.0, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Baseline demographic variables including age, gender, and laterality were comparable between groups (p>0.05). PFN was associated with significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (259.38 ± 78.80 mL vs. 43.88 ± 19.20 mL), longer operative time (80.68 ± 17.21 min vs. 40.58 ± 12.82 min), universal anesthesia requirement, and higher cost (₹27,275.0 ± 2483.87 vs. ₹13,397.50 ± 1799.08) (p<0.001). Union was achieved in 100% of PFN cases and 95% of EF cases (p=0.152). Functional outcomes measured by HHS were significantly better in PFN patients at 3 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months (p<0.001). Complications such as pin tract infection (32.5%) and pin loosening (7.5%) occurred exclusively in the EF group (p<0.001). Conclusion: Both PFN and EF are effective in achieving high union rates in trochanteric fractures; however, PFN provides superior functional recovery, earlier mobilization, and fewer complications, despite higher cost and operative demands. EF remains a useful alternative for elderly or comorbid patients and in resource-constrained settings, but PFN should be considered the preferred modality in most cases.