Aims. Patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines. Methods. We used the NHFD to identify all operations for fixation of trochanteric fractures in England and Wales between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. A uniform price band from each of three hip fracture implant manufacturers was used to set cost implications alongside variation in implant use. Results. We identified 18,156 A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures in 162 centres. Of these, 13,483 (74.3%) underwent SHS fixation, 2,352 (13.0%) were managed with short IMN, and 2,321 (12.8%) were managed with long IMN. Total cost of IMN added up to £1.89 million in 2021, and the clinical justification for this is unclear since rates of IMN use varied from 0% to 97% in different centres. Conclusion. Most trochanteric hip fractures are managed with SHS, in keeping with national guidelines. There is considerable variance between hospitals for implant choice, despite the lack of evidence for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of more expensive nailing systems. This suggests either a lack of awareness of national guidelines or a choice not to follow them. We encourage provider units to reassess their practice if outwith the national norm. Funding bodies should examine implant use closely in this population to prevent resource waste at a time of considerable health austerity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):741–745

Aims. The study objective was to prospectively assess clinical outcomes for a pilot cohort of tibial shaft fractures treated with a new tibial nailing system that produces controlled axial interfragmentary micromotion. The hypothesis was that axial micromotion enhances fracture healing compared to static interlocking. Methods. Patients were treated in a single level I trauma centre over a 2.5-year period. Group allocation was not randomized; both the micromotion nail and standard-of-care static locking nails (control group) were commercially available and selected at the discretion of the treating surgeons. Injury risk levels were quantified using the Nonunion Risk Determination (NURD) score. Radiological healing was assessed until 24 weeks or clinical union. Low-dose CT scans were acquired at 12 weeks and virtual mechanical testing was performed to objectively assess structural bone healing. Results. A total of 37 micromotion patients and 46 control patients were evaluated. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of age, sex, the proportion of open fractures, or NURD score. There were no nonunions (0%) in the micromotion group versus five (11%) in the control group. The proportion of fractures united was significantly higher in the micromotion group compared to control at 12 weeks (54% vs 30% united; p = 0.043), 18 weeks (81% vs 59%; p = 0.034), and 24 weeks (97% vs 74%; p = 0.005). Structural bone healing scores as assessed by CT scans tended to be higher with micromotion compared to control and this difference reached significance in patients who had biological comorbidities such as smoking. Conclusion. In this pilot study, micromotion fixation was associated with improved healing compared to standard tibial nailing. Further prospective clinical studies will be needed to assess the strength and generalizability of any potential benefits of micromotion fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):825–833