Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 3 ( November, 2012 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail versus the classic sliding hip screw for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective randomized study

G. Kouvidis, V. I. Sakellariou, A. F. Mavrogenis, J. Stavrakakis, D. Kampas, J. Galanakis, P. J. Papagelopoulos, P. Katonis

Keywords : Dual lag screw intramedullary nail, Sliding hip screw, Intertrochanteric fractures

Citation Information : Kouvidis G, Sakellariou VI, Mavrogenis AF, Stavrakakis J, Kampas D, Galanakis J, Papagelopoulos PJ, Katonis P. Dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail versus the classic sliding hip screw for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective randomized study. 2012; 7 (3):155-162.

DOI: 10.1007/s11751-012-0146-3

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Published Online: 30-11-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


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.


PDF Share
  1. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7(5):407-413
  2. Hornby R, Evans JG, Vardon V (1989) Operative or conservative treatment for trochanteric fractures of the femur: a randomized epidemiological trial in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg Br 71:619-623
  3. Bong SC, Lau HK, Leong JC, Fang D, Lau MT (1981) The treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a prospective trial of 150 cases. Injury 13:139-146
  4. Jain R, Basinski A, Kreder HJ (2003) Nonoperative treatment of hip fractures. Int Orthop 27:11-17
  5. Lyons AR (1997) Clinical outcomes and treatment of hip fractures. Am J Med 103(2A):51S-64S
  6. Parker MJ, Anand JK (1991) What is the true mortality of hip fractures? Public Health 105:443-446
  7. Rosell PA, Parker MJ (2003) Functional outcome after hip fracture. A 1-year prospective outcome study of 275 patients. Injury 34(7):529-532
  8. Audige L, Hanson B, Swiontkowski MF (2003) Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of sliding screw-plate versus sliding screw-intramedullary nail devices. Int Orthop 27:197-203
  9. Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2005) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD000093
  10. Egol KA, Chang EY, Cvitkovic J, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ (2004) Mismatch of current intramedullary nails with the anterior bow of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 18:410-415
  11. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT (1991) Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the sliding hip screw. J Bone Jt Surg Br 73(2):330-334
  12. Parker MJ, Pryor GA (1996) Gamma versus SHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fractures. Int Orthop 20:163-168
  13. Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J (1990) The comprehensive classification of fractures of the long bones. Springer, Berlin, pp 116-121
  14. American Society of Anaethesiologists (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 24:111-114
  15. Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ, Aharonoff GB, Hiebert R, Skovron ML (2000) A functional recovery score for elderly hip fracture patients: I. development. J Orthop Trauma 14:20-25
  16. Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ, Aharonoff G, Skovron ML (2000) A functional recovery scores for elderly hip fracture patients: II. Validity and reliability. J Orthop Trauma 14:26-30
  17. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN (2008) Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(4):700-707
  18. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, Tufanisco CB (2005) Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 19(4):229-233
  19. Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M et al (2002) Treatment of reverse and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or 95® screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84A:372-381
  20. Docquier PL, Manche E, Autrique JC et al (2002) Complications associated with gamma nailing: a review of 439 cases. Acta Orthop Belg 68:251-257
  21. Robinson CM, Adams CI, Craig M et al (2002) Implant-related fractures of the femur following hip fractures surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84A:1116-1122
  22. Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jönsson A, Zlowodzki M, Haidukewych GJ (2009) Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 23(6): 460-464
  23. Leung KS, Chen CM, So WS et al (1996) Multicenter trial of modified Gamma nail in East Asia. Clin Orthop. 323:146-154
  24. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM (1998) Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop 348:87-94
  25. Kubiak EN, Bong M, Park S, Kummer F, Egol K, Koval KJ (2004) Intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures. One or two lag screws. J Orthop Trauma 18:12-17
  26. Kouvidis GK, Sommers MB, Giannoudis PV, Katonis PG, Bottlang M (2009) Comparison of migration behaviour between single and dual lag screw implants for intertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Surg Res 18(4):16
  27. Ingman AM (2000) Percutaneous intramedullary fixation of trochanteric fractures of the femur: clinical trial of a new hip nail. Injury 31:483-487
  28. Makridis KG, Georgaklis V, Georgoussis M, Mandalos V, Kontogeorgakos V, Badras L (2010) Comparing two intramedullary devices for treating trochanteric fractures: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg Res 18(5):9
  29. Tyllianakis M, Panagopoulos A, Papadopoulos A, Papasimos S, Mousafiris K (2004) Treatment of extracapsular hip fractures with the proximal femoral nail (PFN): long term results in 45 patients. Acta Orthop Belg 70(5):444-454
  30. Werner-Tutschku W, Lajtai G, Schmiedhuber G, Lang T, Pirkl C, Orthner E (2002) Intra- and perioperative complications in the stabilization of per- and subtrochanteric femoral fractures by means of PFN. Unfallchirurg 105(10):881-885
  31. Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, Peicha G, Grechenig W, Szyszkowitz R (2003) The proximal femoral nail (PFN)-a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand 74(1):53-58
  32. Lin J (2007) Encouraging results of treating femoral trochanteric fractures with specially designed double-screw nails. J Trauma 63(4):866-874
  33. Strauss EJ, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, Egol KA (2007) The “Z-effect” phenomenon defined: a laboratory study. J Orthop Res 25(12):1568-1573
  34. Harrington P, Nihal A, Singhania AK et al (2002) Intramedullary hip screw versus sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. Injury 33:23-28
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.