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

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

Aims. A lack of supporting clinical studies have been published to determine the ideal length of intramedullary nail in fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. Nevertheless, there has been a trend to use shorter intramedullary nails for the internal fixation of trochanteric hip fractures. Our aim was to determine if the length of nail affected the outcome. Methods. We randomized 229 patients with a trochanteric hip fracture between two implants: a ‘standard’ nail of 220 mm and a shorter nail of 175 mm, which had decreased proximal angulation (4° vs 7°) and a reduced diameter at the level of the lesser trochanter. Patients were followed up for one year by a nurse blinded to the type of implant used to determine if there were differences in mobility and pain with two nail designs. Pain was assessed on a scale of 1 (none) to 8 (severe and constant) and mobility on a scale of 1 (full mobility) to 9 (immobile). Results. The shorter nail did not require any reaming of the femur and was quicker to insert (mean difference 5.1 minutes; p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference 3.16 to 7.04). Those treated by the shorter nail were less mobile (mean difference in reduction in mobility score at one year 0.80; p = 0.007, 95% CI 1.38 to 0.22). In addition, there was a trend toward greater residual pain for those treated with the shorter nail, although this was not statistically significant (mean difference in pain score at one year 0.24; p = 0.064, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.49). Conclusion. These results suggest that the increasing use of this very short intramedullary nail with its design modification may not be appropriate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):394–399

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.

Aims. To compare the outcomes for trochanteric fractures treated with a sliding hip screw (SHS) or a cephalomedullary nail. Patients and Methods. A total of 400 patients with a trochanteric hip fracture were randomised to receive a SHS or a cephalomedullary nail (Targon PFT). All surviving patients were followed up to one year from injury. Functional outcome was assessed by a research nurse blinded to the implant used. Results. Recovery of mobility, as assessed by a mobility scale, was superior for those treated with the intramedullary nail compared with the SHS at eight weeks, three and nine months (p-values between 0.01 and 0.04), the difference at six and 12 months was not statistically significant (p = 0.15 and p = 0.18 respectively). The mean difference was around 0.4 points (0.3 to 0.5) on a nine point scale. Surgical time for the nail was four minutes less than that for the SHS (p < 0.001). Fracture healing complications were similar for the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences between implants for any other recorded outcomes including the need for post-operative blood transfusion, wound healing complications, general medical complications, hospital stay or mortality. Conclusion. This study confirms the findings of a previous study that both methods of treatment produce similar results, although intramedullary fixation does result in marginally improved regain of mobility in comparison with the SHS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1210–15

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.

We compared the results of the surgical treatment of trochanteric hip fractures before and after surgeons had been introduced to the tip-apex distance (TAD) as a method of evaluating screw position. There were 198 fractures evaluated retrospectively and 118 after instruction. The TAD is the sum of the distance from the tip of the screw to the apex of the femoral head on antero-posterior and lateral views. This decreased from a mean of 25 mm in the control group to 20 mm in the study group (p = 0.0001). The number of mechanical failures by cut-out of the screw from the head decreased from 16 (8%) in the control group at a mean of 13 months to none in the study group at a mean of eight months (p = 0.0015). There were significantly fewer poor reductions in the study group. Our study confirms the importance of good surgical technique in the treatment of trochanteric fractures and supports the concept of the TAD as a clinically useful way of describing the position of the screw