Objectives. Intramedullary fixation is considered the most stable treatment for pertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur and cut-out is one of the most frequent mechanical complications. In order to determine the role of clinical variables and radiological parameters in predicting the risk of this complication, we analysed the data pertaining to a group of patients recruited over the course of six years. Methods. A total of 571 patients were included in this study, which analysed the incidence of cut-out in relation to several clinical variables: age; gender; the AO Foundation and Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification system (AO/OTA); type of nail; cervical-diaphyseal angle; surgical wait times; anti-osteoporotic medication; complete post-operative weight bearing; and radiological parameters (namely the lag-screw position with respect to the femoral head, the Cleveland system, the tip-apex distance (TAD), and the calcar-referenced tip-apex distance (CalTAD)). Results. The incidence of cut-out across the sample was 5.6%, with a higher incidence in female patients. A significantly higher risk of this complication was correlated with lag-screw tip positioning in the upper part of the femoral head in the anteroposterior radiological view, posterior in the latero-lateral radiological view, and in the Cleveland peripheral zones. The tip-apex distance and the calcar-referenced tip-apex distance were found to be highly significant predictors of the risk of cut-out at cut-offs of 30.7 mm and 37.3 mm, respectively, but the former appeared more reliable than the latter in predicting the occurrence of this complication. Conclusion. The tip-apex distance remains the most accurate predictor of cut-out, which is significantly greater above a cut-off of 30.7 mm. Cite this article: G. Caruso, M. Bonomo, G. Valpiani, G. Salvatori, A. Gildone, V. Lorusso, L. Massari. A six-year retrospective analysis of cut-out risk predictors in cephalomedullary nailing for pertrochanteric fractures: Can the tip-apex distance (TAD) still be considered the best parameter?. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:481–488. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.68.BJR-2016-0299.R1