EARLY PAIN AND FUNCTION IN PATIENTS OPERATED WITH A SLIDING HIP SCREW OR AN INTERTAN NAIL. A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED MULTICENTRE STUDY.

Abstract

Background: The treatment of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures is still controversial. In Norway the most commonly used implant for these fractures is the Sliding Hip Screw (SHS), with or without a trochanteric support plate. The Intertan nail (Smith & Nephew) has been launched as a nail with improved biomechanical properties for the treatment of these fractures, but so far it has not been shown that the clinical results are superior to the traditional Sliding Hip Screw.

We wanted to investigate any differences in pain and function between the new Intertan nail and the Sliding Hip Screw in the early postoperative phase.

Materials and Methods: 665 patients older than 60 years with a trochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture were randomized to either a SHS (CHS/DHS) or an Intertan nail in 5 hospitals. For practical reasons only 315 patients (47%) were evaluated at day 5 postoperatively (163 Intertan and 152 SHS), and these patients were used for our analysis. Pain was measured using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and early functional mobility by the “Timed Up and Go”- test (TUG-test). T-tests and chi-square tests were used to examine differences between the groups.

Results: The average pain at rest was similar for the 2 groups (VAS 21). Pain at mobilization, however, differed, where patients operated with the Intertan nail had less pain than those operated with the SHS (VAS 47 vs. 53, p = 0.02). The difference between the implants was most pronounced for the simple two-part fractures (AO Type A1). More patients treated with the nail than with the SHS performed the TUG-test at day 5 (85/163 vs. 63/152, p = 0.06), but there was no statistically significant difference regarding the average speed the TUG-test was performed with (71 vs. 66sec, p = 0.36). The implant type did not influence the length of hospital stay.

Discussion/Conclusion: Regarding early postoperative pain and function, there seems to be similar or better results for trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures treated with the Intertan nail compared to the SHS. The difference in measured pain level was statistically significant, but may not be clinically significant (a difference of VAS 6). We could not detect any significant differences in terms of early functional mobility between the two implants.

In our opinion it still remains to show good long-term results and acceptable complication rates before the new Intertan nail is widely taken into use. Due to the additional costs for the Intertan nail also economic aspects should be considered when choosing the implant and operative method for these fractures.