header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

INTRAMEDULLARY VERSUS EXTRAMEDULLARY FIXATION FOR TRANSTROCHANTERIC FRACTURES OF THE PROXIMAL FEMUR: A RANDOMISED TRIAL



Abstract

Fractures of the proximal femur at the level of the lesser trochanter (reversed and transverse fracture lines, Evans classification type II, AO classification 31. A3 fractures) are known to have an increased risk of fixation failure. 53 patients with such a fracture were randomised to have the fracture fixed with either an intramedullary nail (220 mm Targon Proximal Femoral nail) or a Sliding Hip Screw (SHS). The mean age of the patients was 82 and 11% were male. All patients were followed up for one year by a research nurse blinded to the treatment groups.

Mean length of surgery was 51 minutes for the nail versus 53 minutes for the SHS. There were no differences between groups in the need for blood transfusion. Operative complications tended to be less for the nail group (1/27 versus 5/26). Mean hospital stay was 17 days for the nail group versus 29 days for those treated with the SHS (p< 0.0001). The only fracture healing complications were one case of cut-out in each group requiring revision surgery. During follow-up those patient treated with the nail reported significantly lower pain scores than those treated with the SHS (p=0.08). This difference persisted even at one year from injury. In addition there was a tendency to a better regain of mobility in the first nine months from injury for those treated with the nail.

These results indicate that for these difficult fractures types an intramedullary nails produces superior results to the Sliding Hip Screw.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel: +41 44 448 44 00; Email: office@efort.org

Author: Martyn Parker, United Kingdom

E-mail: dandmparker@tiscali.co.uk