» Articles » PMID: 23086659

Dual Lag Screw Cephalomedullary Nail Versus the Classic Sliding Hip Screw for the Stabilization of Intertrochanteric Fractures. A Prospective Randomized Study

Overview
Date 2012 Oct 23
PMID 23086659
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study is a randomized prospective study comparing two fracture fixation implants, the extramedullary sliding hip screw (SHS) and the dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail, in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. One hundred and sixty-five patients with low-energy intertrochanteric fractures, classified as AO/OTA 31A, were prospectively included during a 2-year period (2005-2006). Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included 79 hip fractures managed with sliding hip screws and group B included 86 fractures treated with cephalomedullary nails. Delay to surgery, duration of surgery, time of fluoroscopy, total hospital stay, implant-related complications, transfusion requirements, re-operation details, functional recovery, and mortality were recorded. The mean follow-up was 36 months (24-56 months). The mean surgical time was statistically significantly shorter and fluoroscopy time longer for the group B. No intraoperative femoral shaft fractures occurred. There was no statistically significant difference in the functional recovery score, reoperation, and mortality rates between the 2 groups. A new type of complication, the so-called Z-effect phenomenon, was noticed in the cephalomedullary nail group. There are no statistically significant differences between the two techniques in terms of type and rate of complications, functional outcome, reoperation and mortality rates when comparing the SHS and the cephalomedullary nail for low-energy AO/OTA 31A intertrochanteric fractures. Our data do not support recommendations for the use of one implant over the other.

Citing Articles

Posterolateral wall integrity in reverse oblique intertrochanteric fracture fixation: A new perspective in evaluation.

Heydar A, Kiyak G Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2024; 30(6):458-464.

PMID: 38863286 PMC: 11230043. DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2024.35808.


Varus mal-alignment and residual displacement are associated with delayed union in subtrochanteric femur fracture- A retrospective observational study.

Kainth G, Nebhani N, Shah B, Kumar G, Kapoor B J Orthop. 2023; 46:64-69.

PMID: 37942221 PMC: 10630759. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.10.029.


Reoperation rates after proximal femur fracture fixation with single and dual screw femoral nails: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sivakumar A, Edwards S, Millar S, Thewlis D, Rickman M EFORT Open Rev. 2022; 7(7):506-515.

PMID: 35900199 PMC: 9297051. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-21-0067.


Risk factors for cut-out in intertrochanteric fractures treated with proximal femoral nail of double proximal screw design.

Sisman A, Avci O, Cepni S, Batar S, Polat O J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2022; 28:101832.

PMID: 35371917 PMC: 8966204. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2022.101832.


Evaluation of functional outcome and comparison of three different surgical modalities for management of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly population.

Garg A, Kamboj P, Sharma P, Yadav U, Siwach R, Kadyan V Int J Burns Trauma. 2022; 12(1):13-22.

PMID: 35309106 PMC: 8918764.


References
1.
Bridle S, Patel A, Bircher M, Calvert P . Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73(2):330-4. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B2.2005167. View

2.
Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jonsson A, Zlowodzki M, Haidukewych G . Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009; 23(6):460-4. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318162f67f. View

3.
Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis J . World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997; 7(5):407-13. DOI: 10.1007/pl00004148. View

4.
Jain R, Basinski A, Kreder H . Nonoperative treatment of hip fractures. Int Orthop. 2003; 27(1):11-7. PMC: 3673693. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-002-0404-y. View

5.
Makridis K, Georgaklis V, Georgoussis M, Mandalos V, Kontogeorgakos V, Badras L . Comparing two intramedullary devices for treating trochanteric fractures: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010; 5:9. PMC: 2831869. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-5-9. View