Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparative statistical analysis of three groups

From: Gamma 3 U-Blade lag screws in patients with trochanteric femur fractures: are rotation control lag screws better than others?

 ITST (n = 60)PFNA (N = 57)U-Blade (n = 68)P value
Age (years)78.5 ± 7.079.5 ± 7.079.2 ± 7.50.187
Gender (female:male)44:1642:1551:170.977
AO classification
31 A13824211.000
31 A2223141
31 A3026
BMI (kg/m2)22.8 ± 3.921.4 ± 3.922.2 ± 3.90.162
BMD (T score)− 2.6 ± 1.3− 2.8 ± 1.4− 2.7 ± 1.21.000
Basicervical fracture type on 3D-CT6 (10%)5 (8.7%)9 (13.2%)0.145
GT comminution on 3D-CT37 (61.7%)37 (64.9%)39 (57.4%)0.684
TAD of lag screw (mm)19.9 ± 0.9819.2 ± 5.0218.1 ± 4.450.835
Sliding distance of lag screw (mm)5.6 ± 3.63.3 ± 3.63.8 ± 3.10.017
Excessive sliding over 10 mm3030.247
Varus change (°)2.3° ± 6.081.3° ± 1.202.2° ± 5.460.762
Excessive change over 10°4230.634
Position of lag screw
Centric4543530.914
Eccentric151415
Reduction quality
Anatomical4343530.572
Non-anatomical171415
Fixation failure3 (5.0%)4 (7.0%)1 (1.5%)0.301
Cause of failure
Cut-out3010.092
Cut-through030
Nail breakage010
Walking ability recovery (Koval grade)52.7%46.8%49.8%0.732