Aims. This study aimed to compare mortality in trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with an intramedullary nail (IMN) or sliding hip screw (SHS). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with secondary endpoints at 0 to 1, 2 to 7, 8 to 30, 90, and 365 days. Methods. We analyzed data from 26,393 patients with trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with IMNs (n = 9,095) or SHSs (n = 17,298) in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (January 2008 to December 2020). Exclusions were made for patients aged < 60 years, pathological fractures, pre-2008 operations, contralateral hip fractures, fractures other than trochanteric A1/A2, and treatments other than IMNs or SHSs. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses adjusted for type of fracture, age, sex, cognitive impairment, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and time period were conducted, along with calculations for number needed to harm (NNH). Results. In unadjusted analyses, there was no significant difference between IMN and SHS patient survival at 30 days (91.8% vs 91.1%; p = 0.083) or 90 days (85.4% vs 84.5%; p = 0.065), but higher one-year survival for IMNs (74.5% vs 73.3%; p = 0.031) compared with SHSs. After adjustments, no significant difference in 30-day mortality was found (hazard rate ratio (HRR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.02(; p = 0.146). IMNs exhibited higher mortality at 0 to 1 days (HRR 1.63 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.34); p = 0.009) compared with SHSs, with a NNH of 556, but lower mortality at 8 to 30 days (HRR 0.89 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00); p = 0.043). No differences were observed in mortality at 2 to 7 days (HRR 0.94 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.11); p = 0.434), 90 days (HRR 0.95 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.02); p = 0.177), or 365 days (HRR 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.02); p = 0.192). Conclusion. This study found no difference in 30-day mortality between IMNs and SHSs. However, IMNs were associated with a higher mortality at 0 to 1 days and a marginally lower mortality at 8 to 30 days compared with SHSs. The observed differences in mortality were small and should probably not guide choice of treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):603–612

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

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.

Aims

The aim of this paper is to review the evidence relating to the anatomy of the proximal femur, the geometry of the fracture and the characteristics of implants and methods of fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip.

Although the importance of lateral femoral wall integrity is increasingly being recognised in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture, little attention has been put on the development of a secondary post-operative fracture of the lateral wall. Patients with post-operative fractures of the lateral wall were reported to have high rates of re-operation and complication. To date, no predictors of post-operative lateral wall fracture have been reported. In this study, we investigated the reliability of lateral wall thickness as a predictor of lateral wall fracture after dynamic hip screw (DHS) implantation.

A total of 208 patients with AO/OTA 31-A1 and -A2 classified intertrochanteric fractures who received internal fixation with a DHS between January 2003 and May 2012 were reviewed. There were 103 men and 150 women with a mean age at operation of 78 years (33 to 94). The mean follow-up was 23 months (6 to 83). The right side was affected in 97 patients and the left side in 111. Clinical information including age, gender, side, fracture classification, tip–apex distance, follow-up time, lateral wall thickness and outcome were recorded and used in the statistical analysis.

Fracture classification and lateral wall thickness significantly contributed to post-operative lateral wall fracture (both p < 0.001). The lateral wall thickness threshold value for risk of developing a secondary lateral wall fracture was found to be 20.5 mm.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the risk factors of post-operative lateral wall fracture in intertrochanteric fracture. We found that lateral wall thickness was a reliable predictor of post-operative lateral wall fracture and conclude that intertrochanteric fractures with a lateral wall thickness < 20.5 mm should not be treated with DHS alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1134–8.

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.

The spiral blade modification of the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) was designed for superior biomechanical fixation in the osteoporotic femoral head. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes and in particular the incidence of loss of fixation.

In a series of 197 consecutive patients over the age of 50 years treated with DHS-blades (blades) and 242 patients treated with conventional DHS (screw) for AO/OTA 31.A1 or A2 intertrochanteric fractures were identified from a prospectively compiled database in a level 1 trauma centre. Using propensity score matching, two groups comprising 177 matched patients were compiled and radiological and clinical outcomes compared. In each group there were 66 males and 111 females. Mean age was 83.6 (54 to 100) for the conventional DHS group and 83.8 (52 to 101) for the blade group.

Loss of fixation occurred in two blades and 13 DHSs. None of the blades had observable migration while nine DHSs had gross migration within the femoral head before the fracture healed. There were two versus four implant cut-outs respectively and one side plate pull-out in the DHS group. There was no significant difference in mortality and eventual walking ability between the groups. Multiple logistic regression suggested that poor reduction (odds ratio (OR) 11.49, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.45 to 90.9, p = 0.021) and fixation by DHS (OR 15.85, 95%CI 2.50 to 100.3, p = 0.003) were independent predictors of loss of fixation.

The spiral blade design may decrease the risk of implant migration in the femoral head but does not reduce the incidence of cut-out and reoperation. Reduction of the fracture is of paramount importance since poor reduction was an independent predictor for loss of fixation regardless of the implant being used.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:398–404.

Aims

The aim of this study was to inform a definitive trial which could determine the clinical effectiveness of the X-Bolt Dynamic Hip Plating System compared with the sliding hip screw for patients with complex pertrochanteric fragility fractures of the femur.

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.