Aims. Despite limited clinical scientific backing, an additional trochanteric stabilizing plate (TSP) has been advocated when treating unstable trochanteric fractures with a sliding hip screw (SHS). We aimed to explore whether the TSP would result in less post operative fracture motion, compared to SHS alone. Methods. Overall, 31 patients with AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures were randomized to either a SHS alone or a SHS with an additional TSP. To compare postoperative fracture motion, radiostereometric analysis (RSA) was performed before and after weightbearing, and then at four, eight, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. With the “after weightbearing” images as baseline, we calculated translations and rotations, including shortening and medialization of the femoral shaft. Results. Similar migration profiles were observed in all directions during the course of healing. At one year, eight patients in the SHS group and 12 patients in the TSP group were available for analysis, finding a clinically non-relevant, and statistically non-significant, difference in total translation of 1 mm (95% confidence interval -4.7 to 2.9) in favour of the TSP group. In line with the migration data, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were found. Conclusion. The TSP did not influence the course of healing or postoperative fracture motion compared to SHS alone. Based on our results, routine use of the TSP in AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures cannot be recommended. The TSP has been shown, in biomechanical studies, to increase stability in sliding hip screw constructs in both unstable and intermediate stable trochanteric fractures, but the clinical evidence is limited. This study showed no advantage of the TSP in unstable (AO 31-A2) fractures in elderly patients when fracture movement was evaluated with radiostereometric analysis. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):37–45

Aims. To investigate if preoperative CT improves detection of unstable trochanteric hip fractures. Methods. A single-centre prospective study was conducted. Patients aged 65 years or older with trochanteric hip fractures admitted to Stavanger University Hospital (Stavanger, Norway) were consecutively included from September 2020 to January 2022. Radiographs and CT images of the fractures were obtained, and surgeons made individual assessments of the fractures based on these. The assessment was conducted according to a systematic protocol including three classification systems (AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), Evans Jensen (EVJ), and Nakano) and questions addressing specific fracture patterns. An expert group provided a gold-standard assessment based on the CT images. Sensitivities and specificities of surgeons’ assessments were estimated and compared in regression models with correlations for the same patients. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were presented as Cohen’s kappa and Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1). Results. We included 120 fractures in 119 patients. Compared to radiographs, CT increased the sensitivity of detecting unstable trochanteric fractures from 63% to 70% (p = 0.028) and from 70% to 76% (p = 0.004) using AO/OTA and EVJ, respectively. Compared to radiographs alone, CT increased the sensitivity of detecting a large posterolateral trochanter major fragment or a comminuted trochanter major fragment from 63% to 76% (p = 0.002) and from 38% to 55% (p < 0.001), respectively. CT improved intra-rater reliability for stability assessment using EVJ (AC1 0.68 to 0.78; p = 0.049) and for detecting a large posterolateral trochanter major fragment (AC1 0.42 to 0.57; p = 0.031). Conclusion. A preoperative CT of trochanteric fractures increased detection of unstable fractures using the AO/OTA and EVJ classification systems. Compared to radiographs, CT improved intra-rater reliability when assessing fracture stability and detecting large posterolateral trochanter major fragments. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):524–531

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

Objectives. Different criteria for assessing the reduction quality of trochanteric fractures have been reported. The Baumgaertner reduction quality criteria (BRQC) are relatively common and the Chang reduction quality criteria (CRQC) are relatively new. The objectives of the current study were to compare the reliability of the BRQC and CRQC in predicting mechanical complications and to investigate the clinical implications of the CRQC. Methods. A total of 168 patients were assessed in a retrospective observational study. Clinical information including age, sex, fracture side, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, tip-apex distance (TAD), fracture classification, reduction quality, blade position, BRQC, CRQC, bone quality, and the occurrence of mechanical complications were used in the statistical analysis. Results. A total of 127 patients were included in the full analysis, and mechanical complications were observed in 26 patients. The TAD, blade position, BRQC and CRQC were significantly associated with mechanical complications in the univariate analysis. Only the TAD (p = 0.025) and the CRQC (p < 0.001) showed significant results in the multivariate analysis. In the comparison of the receiver operating characteristic curves, the CRQC also performed better than the BRQC. Conclusion. The CRQC are reliable in predicting mechanical complications and are more reliable than the BRQC. Future studies could use the CRQC to assess fracture reduction quality. Intraoperatively, the surgeon should refer to the CRQC to achieve good reduction in trochanteric fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;8:502–508

We undertook a multicentre, prospective study of a series of 112 unstable trochanteric fractures in order to evaluate if internal fixation with a sliding screw device combined with augmentation using a calcium phosphate degradable cement (Norian SRS) could improve the clinical, functional and radiological outcome when compared with fractures treated with a sliding screw device alone. Pain, activities of daily living, health status (SF-36), the strength of the hip abductor muscles and radiological outcome were analysed. Six weeks after surgery, the patients in the augmented group had significantly lower global and functional pain scores (p < 0.003), less pain after walking 50 feet (p < 0.01), and a better return to the activities of daily living (p < 0.05). At follow-up at six weeks and six months, those in the augmented group showed a significant improvement compared with the control group in the SF-36 score. No other significant differences were found between the groups. We conclude that augmentation with calcium phosphate cement in unstable trochanteric fractures provides a modest reduction in pain and a slight improvement in the quality of life during the course of healing when compared with conventional fixation with a sliding screw device alone

The proximal femoral nail (PFN) is a recently introduced intramedullary system, designed to improve treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures of the hip. In a multicentre prospective clinical study, the intra-operative use, complications and outcome of treatment using the PFN (n = 211) were compared with those using the gamma nail (GN) (n = 213). The intra-operative blood loss was lower with the PFN (220 ml v 287 ml, p = 0.001). Post-operatively, more lateral protrusion of the hip screws of the PFN (7.6%) was documented, compared with the gamma nail (1.6%, p = 0.02). Most local complications were related to suboptimal reduction of the fracture and/or positioning of the implant. Functional outcome and consolidation were equal for both implants. Generally, the results of treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures were comparable for the PFN and GN. The pitfalls and complications were similar, and mainly surgeon- or fracture-related, rather than implant-related

Aims. We wished to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of parathyroid hormone (PTH) supplements to aid healing of trochanteric fractures of the hip, by an open label prospective feasibility and pilot study with a nested qualitative sub study. This aimed to inform the design of a future powered study comparing the functional recovery after trochanteric hip fracture in patients undergoing standard care, versus those who undergo administration of subcutaneous injection of PTH for six weeks. Patients and Methods. We undertook a pilot study comparing the functional recovery after trochanteric hip fracture in patients 60 years or older, admitted with a trochanteric hip fracture, and potentially eligible to be randomised to either standard care or the administration of subcutaneous PTH for six weeks. Our desired outcomes were functional testing and measures to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the study. Results. A total of 724 patients were screened, of whom 143 (20%) were eligible for recruitment. Of these, 123 were approached and 29 (4%) elected to take part. However, seven patients did not complete the study. Compliance with the injections was 11 out of 15 (73%) showing the intervention to be acceptable and feasible in this patient population. Take home message: Only 4% of patients who met the inclusion criteria were both eligible and willing to consent to a study involving injections of PTH, so delivering this study on a large scale would carry challenges in recruitment and retention. Methodological and sample size planning would have to take this into account. PTH administration to patients to enhance fracture healing should still be considered experimental. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:840–5

In a randomised trial involving 598 patients with 600 trochanteric fractures of the hip, the fractures were treated with either a sliding hip screw (n = 300) or a Targon PF intramedullary nail (n = 300). The mean age of the patients was 82 years (26 to 104). All surviving patients were reviewed at one year with functional outcome assessed by a research nurse blinded to the treatment used. The intramedullary nail was found to have a slightly increased mean operative time (46 minutes (. sd. 12.3) versus 49 minutes (. sd. 12.7), p < 0.001) and an increased mean radiological screening time (0.3 minutes (. sd. 0.2) versus 0.5 minutes (. sd. 0.3), p <  0.001). Operative difficulties were more common with the intramedullary nail. There was no statistically significant difference between implants for wound healing complications (p = 1), or need for post-operative blood transfusion (p = 1), and medical complications were similarly distributed in both groups. There was a tendency to fewer revisions of fixation or conversion to an arthroplasty in the nail group, although the difference was not statistically significant (nine versus three cases, p = 0.14). The extent of shortening, loss of hip flexion, mortality and degree of residual pain were similar in both groups. The recovery of mobility was superior for those treated with the intramedullary nails (p = 0.01 at one year from injury). In summary, both implants produced comparable results but there was a tendency to better return of mobility for those treated with the intramedullary nail

Aims: Our purpose was to determine if DHS fixed with hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated AO/ASIF screws improves fixation and clinical outcomes in osteoporotic trochanteric fracture patients. Methods: 120 osteoporotic patients with trochanteric fractures were randomized to receive 135° 4-hole DHS fixed with either standard lag and cortical stainless-steel AO/ASIF screws (Group A) or HA-coated lag and cortical stainless-steel AO/ASIF screws (Group B). Inclusion criteria were: female; age ≥65 years; AO type A1 or A2; and BMD lower than -2.5 T score. Results: Tip Apex Distance (TAD) was 22±4mm in Group A and 23±5mm in Group B (ns). In Group A there were 4 cut-out cases and none in Group B (p< 0.05, β=0.8). Post-op (ns) and 6 month (p=0.008) femoral neck-shaft angle was 134±5° and 129±7° (Group A) and 134±7° and 133±7° (Group B). At 6 months, Harris Hip Score was 63±22 (Group A) and 71±18 (Group B) (p=0.02). Conclusions: HA-coated AO/ASIF screws prevent fracture varization and lag screw cutout, thus improving clinical outcomes in osteoporotic trochanteric fracture patients

We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare external fixation of trochanteric fractures of the femur with the more costly option of the sliding hip screw. Patients in both groups were matched for age (mean 67 years, 50 to 100) and gender. We excluded all pathological fractures, patients presenting at more than one week, fractures with subtrochanteric extension or reverse obliquity, multiple fractures or any bone and joint disease interfering with rehabilitation. The interval between injury and operation, the duration of surgery, the amount of blood loss, the length of hospital stay and the cost of treatment were all significantly higher in the sliding hip screw group (p < 0.05). The time to union, range of movement, mean Harris hip scores and Western Ontario and McMaster University knee scores were comparable at six months. The number of patients showing shortening or malrotation was too small to show a significant difference between the groups. Pin-track infection occurred in 18 patients (60%) treated with external fixation, whereas there was a single case of wound infection (3.3%) in the sliding hip screw group

Aims. This study evaluated variation in the surgical treatment of stable (A1) and unstable (A2) trochanteric hip fractures among an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, and determined the influence of patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics on choice of implant (intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus sliding hip screw (SHS)). Methods. A total of 128 orthopaedic surgeons in the Science of Variation Group evaluated radiographs of 30 patients with Type A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures and indicated their preferred treatment: IMN or SHS. The management of Type A3 (reverse obliquity) trochanteric fractures was not evaluated. Agreement between surgeons was calculated using multirater kappa. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics were independently associated with choice of implant. Results. The overall agreement between surgeons on implant choice was fair (kappa = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.28)). Factors associated with preference for IMN included USA compared to Europe or the UK (Europe odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.67); UK OR 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22); p < 0.001); exposure to IMN only during training compared to surgeons that were exposed to both (only IMN during training OR 2.6 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.4); p < 0.001); and A2 compared to A1 fractures (Type A2 OR 10 (95% CI 8.4 to 12); p < 0.001). Conclusion. In an international cohort of orthopaedic surgeons, there was a large variation in implant preference for patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric fractures. This is due to surgeon bias (country of practice and aspects of training). The observation that surgeons favoured the more expensive implant (IMN) in the absence of convincing evidence of its superiority suggests that surgeon de-biasing strategies may be a useful focus for optimizing patient outcomes and promoting value-based healthcare. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):775–781

Quantitative polarised light microscopy was applied to sections of unfixed, undecalcified bone taken at operation from patients with two types of proximal femoral fracture, subcapital and trochanteric. Specimens were also taken from the equivalent sites in otherwise normal subjects at autopsy, and from various other sites of traumatic fractures; these two latter groups acted as controls. Analysis of the 57 specimens disclosed changes in the nature of the bone at the site of subcapital fractures, namely the presence of relatively large crystals of hydroxyapatite and a change in the molecular orientation, but not total content, of the acidic proteoglycans of the bone matrix. Our results have confirmed and extended the findings of others on subcapital fractures, and have also shown very similar changes in the trochanteric fractures. It thus appears that the bony changes in the two types of proximal femoral fracture are not as different as has been suggested

The October 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Intramedullary nailing versus sliding hip screw in trochanteric fracture management: the INSITE randomized clinical trial; Five-year outcomes for patients with a displaced fracture of the distal tibia; Direct anterior versus anterolateral approach in hip joint hemiarthroplasty; Proximal humerus fractures: treat them all nonoperatively?; Tranexamic acid administration by prehospital personnel; Locked plating versus nailing for proximal tibia fractures: a multicentre randomized controlled trial; A retrospective review of the rate of septic knee arthritis after retrograde femoral nailing for traumatic femoral fractures at a single academic institution

Aims. Surgical treatment of hip fracture is challenging; the bone is porotic and fixation failure can be catastrophic. Novel implants are available which may yield superior clinical outcomes. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of the novel X-Bolt Hip System (XHS) with the sliding hip screw (SHS) for the treatment of fragility hip fractures. Methods. We conducted a multicentre, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 60 years and older with a trochanteric hip fracture were recruited in ten acute UK NHS hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated to fixation of their fracture with XHS or SHS. A total of 1,128 participants were randomized with 564 participants allocated to each group. Participants and outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the EuroQol five-dimension five-level health status (EQ-5D-5L) utility at four months. The minimum clinically important difference in utility was pre-specified at 0.075. Secondary outcomes were EQ-5D-5L utility at 12 months, mortality, residential status, mobility, revision surgery, and radiological measures. Results. Overall, 437 and 443 participants were analyzed in the primary intention-to-treat analysis in XHS and SHS treatment groups respectively. There was a mean difference of 0.029 in adjusted utility index in favour of XHS with no evidence of a difference between treatment groups (95% confidence interval -0.013 to 0.070; p = 0.175). There was no evidence of any differences between treatment groups in any of the secondary outcomes. The pattern and overall risk of adverse events associated with both treatments was similar. Conclusion. Any difference in four-month health-related quality of life between the XHS and SHS is small and not clinically important. There was no evidence of a difference in the safety profile of the two treatments; both were associated with lower risks of revision surgery than previously reported. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):256–263

After previous experience with hip screws and gamma nails, based on recent biomechanical studies, we started treating femoral neck fractures with PFN nail. The proximal femural nail is made of titanium, has two lengths, and a distal flexible component of various diameters with which the femoral neck area can be stabilised with an 11.5-mm cephalic screw and an anti-rotation 6.5-mm screw, both of variable lengths. From January 2002 to January 2004, 80 of 100 trochanteric fractures were treated with PFN nail. Most fractures were of the 31.A2 and 31.A3 AO type. Mean surgery time was 40 min. Patients began ROM exercises on the first post-operative day and assisted weight-bearing on the fourth and were controlled at 1, 2, and 6 months and then yearly. No important intra-operative complications and no post-operative fractures have been encountered. However, we do report one case of screw cut-out. About 80% of results were good-excellent. We can state that the use of PFN nail is of particular value since its unique technical features seem to reduce post-operative complications and surgical stresses, due to less invasiveness, intra-operative complications, and, due to the enhanced stability granted by additional cephalic screws and reduced size and increased flexibility of the distal part of the nail. Finally, we emphasise some surgical tips for best results: respect of correct nail introduction point, minimal proximal reaming, gentle introduction of the nail and particular attention to cephalic screw position and length

Aims: We compared treatment with external fixation (EF) vs DHS in osteoporotic trochanteric fractures. Methods: 40 patients were randomized to receive either 135° 4-hole DHS (Group A) or an Orthofix trochanteric external fixator with 4 hydroxyapatite-coated Osteotite pins (Group B). Inclusion criteria were: female, age ≥65 years, AO fracture type A1-2 and BMD lower than -2.5T score. Fixators were removed at 3 months. Results: There were no differences in patient age, fracture type, BMD, ASA, hospital stay, or quality of reduction. Operative time was 64±6 minutes in Group A and 34±5 minutes in Group B (p< 0.005). Average number of blood transfusions was 2±0.1 in Group A, and none in Group B (p< 0.0001). Fracture varization at 6 months was 6±8° in Group A and 2±1° in Group B (p=0.002). Harris Hip Score was 62±20 in Group A and 63±17 in Group B (ns). In Group B, no pin-track infections occurred. Pin fixation was maintained over time, as shown by no differences between pin extraction and insertion torque. Conclusions: We consider EF a viable treatment option for this patient population. Operative time is short, postoperative complications are minimized, and fixation is improved

In a randomised prospective trial 98 elderly women with trochanteric fractures of the femur were treated with either a 135 degrees Jewett nail-plate or a 135 degrees Dynamic hip screw. The results at six weeks, three months and six months were statistically analysed. There were no significant differences in the two groups with regard to pain, length of hospital stay, morbidity or mortality. Although operative difficulties and open reduction were more common with the Dynamic hip screw, at the end of six months more patients in this group were mobile and there was significant radiological evidence of better compression without loss of fixation

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the type of operation used to treat a trochanteric fracture of the hip and 30-day mortality. Patients and Methods. Data on 82 990 patients from the National Hip Fracture Database were analyzed using generalized linear models with incremental case-mix adjustment for patient, non-surgical and surgical characteristics, and socioeconomic factors. Results. The use of short and long intramedullary nails was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.125, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.040 to 1.218; p = 0.004) compared with the use of sliding hip screws (12.5% increase). If this were causative, it would represent 98 excess deaths over the four-year period of the study and one excess death would be caused by treating 112 patients with an intramedullary nail rather than a sliding hip screw. Conclusion. There is a 12.5% increase in the risk of 30-day mortality associated with the use of an intramedullary nail compared with a sliding hip screw in the treatment of a trochanteric fractures of the hip