Background

Systematic reviews disagree, but some recent studies have shown better function and less pain after operation with bipolar hemiarthroplasty compared to fixation by two screws in elderly patients operated for displaced femoral neck fractures. There is still uncertainty regarding the mortality associated with both procedures.

Background

A well conducted randomised study found similar functional results for patients with displaced femoral neck fracture comparing operation with a modern uncemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty with a cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty. The mortality associated with the two procedures has not been sufficiently investigated.

Introduction

Displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly are normally treated with 2 screws/pins (IF) or bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA). The aim of this study was to compare IF and HA as treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures using reoperations and functional result (patient satisfaction, pain, and quality of life) as outcome.

Introduction

Undisplaced femoral neck fractures have been given little attention in the literature. By using data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, this study investigates risk for reoperation and the clinical results, including pain, patient satisfaction, and quality of life, after undisplaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.

Introduction

The treatment of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures remains controversial, and new implants are constantly being developed trying to improve outcome and minimize the number of complications in these fractures.

In Norway the Sliding Hip Screw(SHS), with or without a Trochanteric Stabilizing Plate (TSP), is still the most commonly used implant, but worldwide nailing of these fractures is increasing. This trend, however, has not been supported by documentation of better clinical results compared to the SHS in well designed studies. Therefore, in the present study we compared the recently launched Trigen Intertan nail (Smith and Nephew) with the SHS in the treatment of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures.

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.

Aims: To calculate one-year survival after dislocated intracapsular femoral neck fractures and to assess factors associated with increased risk of death.

Patients: 2045 patients treated for dislocated intracapsular femoral neck fractures during 2005 were registered in The Norwegian Hip Fracture Registry and were included in the present study.

Methods: Almost all hospitals in Norway reported proximal femoral fractures to the Registry using standard forms filled in by the operating surgeons. Survival was calculated using Kaplan Meier survival analyses, and the impact of factors possibly influencing the survival was estimated using Cox regression analysis. Mortality data for all patients were obtained from Statistics Norway.

Results: 2045 patients having dislocated intracapsular femoral neck fractures operated with 2 pins/screws (1071) and bipolar hemiprosthesis (974) were enrolled in the Registry during 2005. Among these, 333 patients died within the first year after the operation; 2 pins/screws (170) and bipolar hemiprosthesis (163). Factors adversely associated with survival included high age, male gender, dementia and with an increase in preoperative ASA classification. No statistically significant difference was found regarding preoperativ delay or for the two different treatment methods.

Conclusion: After one year there is no difference in risk of death between operation methods; 2 pins/screws and hemiprosthesis, for dislocated femoral neck fractures.

Background: Annually about 9,000 patients in Norway are operated because of hip fractures. From January 2005 all these fractures should be reported to The Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, founded by the Norwegian Orthopaedic Association and operated by The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1. January 2005.

Patients and methods: We have established contacts at every hospital in Norway that perform surgery for hip fractures. Immediately after the surgery the surgeon fills in a standardized form which is sent to the register once a month. On the form there are both patient- and procedure-related questions. Four and twelve months postoperatively we send a questionnaire to the patients, including the Norwegian translation of the EuroQol-5D. Patient information is linked to the Norwegian Death Register using the unique identification number assigned for each resident of Norway. We have so far included 5,668 primary hip fractures operations and 607 revision procedures including revisions to hemiprosthesis and total hip replacements (THR).

Results: After 1 year of registration 100 % of the hospitals are reporting to the register. Approximately 50 % of the patients have answered the questionnaire. Of the primary operated patients the mean age was 80.5 years and 73 % were females. 59 % of the fractures were intracapsular femoral neck fractures and approximately 2/3 of those were dislocated. 35 % of the fractures were intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric.

Intracapsular dislocated fractures: Screw fixation was used in 48 % of the hips while 46 % of the hips were operated with a hemiarthroplasty, and 4.1 % were operated with a THR. We could not find any difference in mortality between screw fixated patients and patients operated with a hemiarthroplasty.

Intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric fractures: The hip compression screw osteosynthesis was used in 88 % of the patients, 6.3 % of these had a lateral support plate. An intramedullary nail was used in 8.9 % of the patients.

Conclusion: After only one year, the reports from the surgeons were good. Taking the age and general status into consideration, also the response from the patients is satisfactory. With longer follow-up we will be able to give more information on the outcomes of hip fractures and of the different treatment. Updated analysis will be reported.