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

Aims. We compared implant and patient survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IOPFFs) during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with matched controls. Patients and Methods. This retrospective cohort study compared 4831 hips with IOPFF and 48 154 propensity score matched primary THAs without IOPFF implanted between 2004 and 2016, which had been recorded on a national joint registry. Implant and patient survival rates were compared between groups using Cox regression. Results. Ten-year stem survival was worse in the IOPFF group (p < 0.001). Risk of revision for aseptic loosening increased 7.2-fold following shaft fracture and almost 2.8-fold after trochanteric fracture (p < 0.001). Risk of periprosthetic fracture of the femur revision increased 4.3-fold following calcar-crack and 3.6-fold after trochanteric fracture (p < 0.01). Risk of instability revision was 3.6-fold after trochanteric fracture and 2.4-fold after calcar crack (p < 0.001). Risk of 90-day mortality following IOPFF without revision was 1.7-fold and 4.0-fold after IOPFF with early revision surgery versus uncomplicated THA (p < 0.001). Conclusion. IOPFF increases risk of stem revision and mortality up to ten years following surgery. The risk of revision depends on IOPFF subtype and mortality risk increases with subsequent revision surgery. Surgeons should carefully diagnose and treat IOPFF to minimize fracture progression and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1199–1208

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 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

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

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

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

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

We undertook a trial on 60 patients with AO 31A2 fractures of the hip who were randomised after stabilisation of the fracture into two equal groups, one of which received post-operative treatment using a non-invasive interactive neurostimulation device and the other with a sham device. All other aspects of their rehabilitation were the same. The treatment was continued for ten days after operation.

Outcome measurements included the use of a visual analogue scale for pain, the brief pain inventory and Ketorolac for post-operative control of pain, and an overall assessment of outcome by the surgeon. There were significantly better results for the patients receiving treatment by active electrical stimulation (repeated measures analysis of variance, p < 0.001). The findings of this pilot trial justify a larger study to determine if these results are more generally applicable.

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

All elderly patients with extracapsular hip fractures seen in hospitals in Newcastle upon Tyne over a 12-month period were studied and followed up for six months. At one of the hospitals, patients were randomised to treatment by AO dynamic hip-screw or by traction. Complications specific to the two treatments were low, and general complications, six-month mortality and prevalence of pain, leg swelling and unhealed sores, showed no difference between the two modes of treatment. Operative treatment gave better anatomical results and a shorter hospital stay, but significantly more of the patients treated by traction showed loss of independence six months after injury.

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate if there are differences in outcome between sliding hip screws (SHSs) and intramedullary nails (IMNs) with regard to fracture stability. Methods. We assessed data from 17,341 patients with trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures treated with SHS or IMN in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from 2013 to 2019. Primary outcome measures were reoperations for stable fractures (AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type A1) and unstable fractures (AO/OTA type A2, A3, and subtrochanteric fractures). Secondary outcome measures were reoperations for A2, A3, and subtrochanteric fractures individually, one-year mortality, quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension three-level index score), pain (visual analogue scale (VAS)), and satisfaction (VAS) for stable and unstable fractures. Hazard rate ratios (HRRs) for reoperation were calculated using Cox regression analysis with adjustments for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Results. Reoperation rate was lower after surgery with IMN for unstable fractures one year (HRR 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.97; p = 0.022) and three years postoperatively (HRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; p = 0.036), compared with SHS. For individual fracture types, no clinically significant differences were found. Lower one-year mortality was found for IMN compared with SHS for stable fractures (HRR 0.87; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96; p = 0.007), and unstable fractures (HRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98; p = 0.014). Conclusion. This national register-based study indicates a lower reoperation rate for IMN than SHS for unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures, but not for stable fractures or individual fracture types. The choice of implant may not be decisive to the outcome of treatment for stable trochanteric fractures in terms of reoperation rate. One-year mortality rate for unstable and stable fractures was lower in patients treated with IMN. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):274–282

The aim of this study was to quantify the stability of fracture-implant complex in fractures after fixation. A total of 15 patients with an undisplaced fracture of the femoral neck, treated with either a dynamic hip screw or three cannulated hip screws, and 16 patients with an AO31-A2 trochanteric fracture treated with a dynamic hip screw or a Gamma Nail, were included. Radiostereometric analysis was used at six weeks, four months and 12 months post-operatively to evaluate shortening and rotation. Migration could be assessed in ten patients with a fracture of the femoral neck and seven with a trochanteric fracture. By four months post-operatively, a mean shortening of 5.4 mm (-0.04 to 16.1) had occurred in the fracture of the femoral neck group and 5.0 mm (-0.13 to 12.9) in the trochanteric fracture group. A wide range of rotation occurred in both types of fracture. Right-sided trochanteric fractures seem more rotationally stable than left-sided fractures. This prospective study shows that migration at the fracture site occurs continuously during the first four post-operative months, after which stabilisation occurs. This information may allow the early recognition of patients at risk of failure of fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:391–7

We studied 217 patients with an unstable trochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture who had been randomly allocated to treatment by either internal fixation with a standard Gamma nail (SGN) or a Medoff sliding plate (MSP, biaxial dynamisation mode). Their mean age was 84 years (65 to 99) and they were reviewed at four and 12 months after surgery. Assessments of outcome included general complications, technical failures, revision surgery, activities of daily living (ADL), hip function (Charnley score) and the health-related quality of life (HRQOL, EQ-5D). The rate of technical failure in patients with unstable trochanteric fractures was 6.5% (6/93) (including intra-operative femoral fractures) in the SGN group and 5.2% (5/96) in the MSP group. In patients with subtrochanteric fractures, there were no failures in the SGN group (n = 16) and two in the MSP group (n = 12). In the SGN group, there were intra-operative femoral fractures in 2.8% (3/109) and no post-operative fractures. There was a reduced need for revision surgery in the SGN group compared with the MSP group (8.3%; 9/108; p = 0.072). The SGN group also showed a lower incidence of severe general complications (p < 0.05) and a trend towards a lower incidence of wound infections (p = 0.05). There were no differences between the groups regarding the outcome of ADL, hip function or the HRQOL. The reduction in the HRQOL (EQ-5D. index. score) was significant in both groups compared with that before the fracture (p < 0.005). Our findings indicate that the SGN showed good results in both trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. The limited number of intra-operative femoral fractures did not influence the outcome or the need for revision surgery. Moreover, the SGN group had a reduced number of serious general complications and wound infections compared with the MSP group. The MSP in the biaxial dynamisation mode had a low rate of failure in trochanteric fractures but an unacceptably high rate when used in the biaxial dynamisation mode in subtrochanteric fractures. The negative influence of an unstable trochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture on the quality of life was significant regardless of the surgical method