Favorable radiographic outcomes using the expandable proximal femoral nail in the treatment of hip fractures - A randomized controlled trial

Dynamic hip screws versus cephalocondylic intramedullary nails for unstable extracapsular hip fractures in 2021: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background

Extracapsular hip fractures comprise approximately half of all hip fractures and the incidence of hip fractures is exponentially increasing. Extramedullary fixation using a dynamic hip screw (DHS) has been the gold standard method of operative treatment for unstable extracapsular fractures, however, in recent years, intramedullary nails (IMN) have become a popular alternative. IMN versus DHS is continuously discussed and debated in literature. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to directly compare the peri- and post-operative outcomes of these two techniques to provide an up-to-date analysis of which method of fixation is superior.

Methods

The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science Database were searched for eligible studies from 2008 to April 2022 that compared peri- and post-operational outcomes for patients undergoing IMN or DHS operations for fixation of unstable extracapsular hip fractures (PROSPERO registration ID:CRD42021228335). Primary outcomes included mortality rate and re-operation rate. Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, complication, and failure of fixation rate. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE analysis tool, respectively.

Results

Of the 6776 records identified, 22 studies involving 3151 patients were included in the final review. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences between mortality rates (10 studies, OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, p = 0.88) or re-operation rates (10 studies, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, p = 0.91) between the two procedures. There were also no significant differences found between complication rates (17 studies, OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.79 to 2.12, p = 0.31) and failure of fixation rates (14 studies, OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.38, p = 0.35). However, DHS operations had a significantly longer operation time (p < 0.0001) and blood loss (p < 0.00001) than IMN operations.

Conclusion

Overall, based on the outcomes assessed, this review has demonstrated that there is no significant difference in the post-operative outcomes for DHS vs IMN, however a significant difference exists in two of the intraoperative outcomes assessed in this review.

The effect of surgical technique on cognitive function in elderly patients with hip fractures: Proximal femoral nailing versus hemiarthroplasty

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare the effects of hemiarthroplasty (HA) and proximal femoral nailing (PFN) on postoperative cognitive function in elderly adults with hip fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between August 2021 and January 2022, a total of 49 patients (28 males, 21 females; mean age: 78.1±9.4 years; range, 65 to 96 years) presented with a proximal femoral fracture were included. The patients were divided into two groups based on the type of surgical technique used. Group 1 consisted of 23 patients who underwent cemented HA, while Group 2 consisted of 26 patients who underwent osteosynthesis with a PFN. Preoperatively (24 h before surgery), within the first week (Days 4 to 7), and at one month following surgery, the MiniMental State Examination (MMSE) was applied.

RESULTS

The surgery side and duration of surgery were not significantly different between the two groups (p>0.05); however, the length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss were significantly different (p<0.001) in favor of Group 2. When the decline in MMSE scores from preoperative to postoperative was assessed, it was shown that group 2 had a lesser decrease.

CONCLUSION

Patients with hip fractures who underwent PFN surgery experienced less postoperative cognitive impairment than those who underwent HA surgery.

Surgical interventions for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising. The majority of extracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of extracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and five other databases in July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included internal and external fixation, arthroplasties and non-operative treatment. We excluded studies of hip fractures with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 184 studies (160 RCTs and 24 quasi-RCTs) with 26,073 participants with 26,086 extracapsular hip fractures in the review. The mean age in most studies ranged from 60 to 93 years, and 69% were women. After discussion with clinical experts, we selected nine nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: fixed angle plate (dynamic and static), cephalomedullary nail (short and long), condylocephalic nail, external fixation, hemiarthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and non-operative treatment. Seventy-three studies (with 11,126 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected the dynamic fixed angle plate as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias, and because some of the estimates included the possibility of transitivity owing to the proportion of stable and unstable fractures between treatment comparisons. We also downgraded if we noted evidence of inconsistency in direct or indirect estimates from which the network estimate was derived. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  Overall, 20.2% of participants who received the reference treatment had died by 12 months after surgery. We noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at this time point between the treatments compared. Effect estimates of all treatments included plausible benefits as well as harms. Short cephalomedullary nails had the narrowest confidence interval (CI), with 7 fewer deaths (26 fewer to 15 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07). THA had the widest CI, with 62 fewer deaths (177 fewer to 610 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.03). The certainty of the evidence for all treatments was low to very low. Although we ranked the treatments, this ranking should be interpreted cautiously because of the imprecision in all the network estimates for these treatments. Overall, 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment had unplanned return to theatre. Compared to this treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence that 58 more participants (14 to 137 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a static fixed angle plate (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.50), and 91 more participants (37 to 182 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if treated with a condylocephalic nail (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.95 to 5.68). We also found that these treatments were ranked as having the highest probability of unplanned return to theatre. In the remaining treatments, we noted no evidence of any differences in unplanned return to theatre, with effect estimates including benefits as well as harms. The certainty of the evidence for these other treatments ranged from low to very low. We did not use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for early mortality, but our findings were similar to those for 12-month mortality, with no evidence of any differences in treatments when compared to dynamic fixed angle plate. Very few studies reported HRQoL and we were unable to build networks from these studies and perform network meta-analysis.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Across the networks, we found that there was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, static implants such as condylocephalic nails and static fixed angle plates did yield a higher risk of unplanned return to theatre. We had insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any treatments on HRQoL, and this review includes data for only two outcomes. More detailed pairwise comparisons of some of the included treatments are reported in other Cochrane Reviews in this series. Short cephalomedullary nails versus dynamic fixed angle plates contributed the most evidence to each network, and our findings indicate that there may be no difference between these treatments. These data included people with both stable and unstable extracapsular fractures. At this time, there are too few studies to draw any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of arthroplasty or external fixation for extracapsular fracture in older adults. Future research could focus on the benefits and harms of arthroplasty interventions compared with internal fixation using a dynamic implant.

Cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in older adults

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a substantial challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. Most hip fractures are treated surgically. This Cochrane Review evaluates evidence for implants used to treat extracapsular hip fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary fixation implants for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and the National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, and conducted backward-citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing cephalomedullary nails with extramedullary implants for treating fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by a high-energy trauma or specific pathologies other than osteoporosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven critical outcomes: performance of activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as 'early mortality'; and reported from four months onwards, with priority given to data at 12 months, as '12 months since surgery'), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 76 studies (66 RCTs, 10 quasi-RCTs) with a total of 10,979 participants with 10,988 extracapsular hip fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 54 to 85 years; 72% were women. Seventeen studies included unstable trochanteric fractures; three included stable trochanteric fractures only; one included only subtrochanteric fractures; and other studies included a mix of fracture types. More than half of the studies were conducted before 2010. Owing to limitations in the quality of reporting, we could not easily judge whether care pathways in these older studies were comparable to current standards of care. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes because of high or unclear risk of bias; imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide); and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity or differences between findings when outcomes were reported using other measurement tools). There is probably little or no difference between cephalomedullary nails and extramedullary implants in terms of mortality within four months of surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; 30 studies, 4603 participants) and at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; 47 studies, 7618 participants); this evidence was assessed to be of moderate certainty. We found low-certainty evidence for differences in unplanned return to theatre but this was imprecise and included clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 50 studies, 8398 participants). The effect estimate for functional status at four months also included clinically relevant benefits and harms; this evidence was derived from only two small studies and was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.30; 188 participants; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the estimate for delirium was imprecise (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.22; 5 studies, 1310 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mobility at four months was reported using different measures (such as the number of people with independent mobility or scores on a mobility scale); findings were not consistent between these measures and we could not be certain of the evidence for this outcome. We were also uncertain of the findings for performance in ADL at four months; we did not pool the data from four studies because of substantial heterogeneity. We found no data for health-related quality of life at four months. Using a cephalomedullary nail in preference to an extramedullary device saves one superficial infection per 303 patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 35 studies, 5087 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and leads to fewer non-unions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96; 40 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the risk of intraoperative implant-related fractures was greater with cephalomedullary nails (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.65 to 5.24; 35 studies, 4872 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), as was the risk of later fractures (RR 3.62, 95% CI 2.07 to 6.33; 46 studies, 7021 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Cephalomedullary nails caused one additional implant-related fracture per 67 participants. We noted no evidence of a difference in other adverse events related or unrelated to the implant, fracture or both. Subgroup analyses provided no evidence of differences between the length of cephalomedullary nail used, the stability of the fracture, or between newer and older designs of cephalomedullary nail.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Extramedullary devices, most commonly the sliding hip screw, yield very similar functional outcomes to cephalomedullary devices in the management of extracapsular fragility hip fractures. There is a reduced risk of infection and non-union with cephalomedullary nails, however there is an increased risk of implant-related fracture that is not attenuated with newer designs. Few studies considered patient-relevant outcomes such as performance of activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, mobility, or delirium. This emphasises the need to include the core outcome set for hip fracture in future RCTs.

Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures with Proximal Femoral Nailing Antirotation: Traction Table or Double Reverse Traction Repositor

Objective: The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the efficacy of the double reverse traction repositor (DRTR) and traction table with proximal femoral nailing antirotation (PFNA) in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Patients and Methods: Data from 66 patients (36 patients treated with the traction table and 30 patients treated with DRTR) with unstable intertrochanteric fractures were reviewed from January 2017 to June 2017. The demographics, fracture characteristics, surgical data, and prognostic parameters were collected to compare the differences between the two groups. Results: The collodiaphyseal angle (CDA) was significantly lower in the DRTR group than in the traction table group (129.37° ± 7.47 and 135.67° ± 6.95, respectively, p < 0.001). The open reduction rate was significantly lower in the DRTR group than in the traction table group (3.3% and 13.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the demographics, fracture characteristics, other surgical data, or prognostic parameters between the two groups. Conclusions: DRTR can facilitate safe, effective, and minimally invasive treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures with PFNA.

[Comparison of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation operation in traction bed supine position and non-traction bed lateral position in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of femur]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of femur in traction bed supine position and non-traction bed lateral position.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 102 elderly patients with intertrochanteric fracture of femur who met the selection criteria between January 2013 and April 2018 was made. According to the different operative positions, the patients were divided into two groups: group A (50 cases, PFNA internal fixation in traction bed supine position) and group B (52 cases, PFNA internal fixation in non-traction bed lateral position). There was no significant difference in age, gender, fracture side, cause of injury, AO classification, complications, and time from injury to operation between the two groups ( P>0.05). The preoperative preparation time, incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy times, fracture healing time, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups, and the effectiveness was evaluated by Harris hip score at 1 year after operation.

Results

There was no significant difference in incision length between groups A and B ( t=1.116, P=0.268). In addition, the preoperative preparation time, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy times in group A were significantly greater than those in group B ( P<0.05). Both groups were followed up 12-14 months, with an average of 13 months. There were 3 postoperative complications in group A and group B respectively. In group A, there were 2 cases of hip joint pain and 1 case of local fat liquefaction (healed after dressing change); in group B, there were 2 cases of hip joint pain and 1 case of deep vein thrombosis in lower extremity; there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups ( P=0.642). The patients of the two groups had a good result of fracture reduction and the internal fixation quality, and there was no main nail loosening, screw fracture, spiral blade cutting, withdrawal, and the nail breakage occurred, and no nonunion of bone, coxa vara, and other complications occurred. X-ray showed that the fracture healed in both groups, and there was no significant difference in fracture healing time between the two groups ( t=1.515, P=0.133). There was no significant difference in Harris hip score between the two groups at 1 year after operation ( t=0.778, P=0.438).

Conclusion

Compared with the traction bed supine position, PFNA internal fixation for intertrochanteric fracture of femur in the non-traction bed lateral position has the advantages of short preparation time, short operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, less X-ray fluoroscopy times, and satisfactory postoperative recovery effect.

Nail or plate fixation for A3 trochanteric hip fractures: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Continuing controversy exists for the choice of implant for treating A3 trochanteric hip fractures so we undertook a systematic review of randomised controlled trials from the year 2000 onwards that have compared an intramedullary nail with an extramedullary fixation implant for the treatment of these fractures. Data on the occurrence of any fracture healing complications was extracted and the results combined to calculate Peto odd ratio. Nine studies involving 370 fractures were identified. Three studies involving 105 fractures compared an intramedullary nail with a static fixation (condylar, blade or locking plate). Plate fixation was associated with a fivefold increase risk of fracture healing complications (19/52(36.6%) versus 4/53(7.5%), odds ratio 0.14, 95% Confidence intervals 0.04-0.45). Six studies involving 265 fractures compared an intramedullary nail with a sliding hip screw. No statistically significant difference was found in the occurrence of facture healing complications between implants (13/137(9.5%) versus 11/128(8.6%) odds ratio 0.28, 95% Confidence intervals 0.50-2.80). Bases on the evidence to date from randomised trials, the use of fixed nail plates for surgical fixation of this type of fracture cannot be justified. Intramedullary nail fixation and the sliding hip screw have comparable fracture healing complication rates.

Traction table versus manual traction in the intramedullary nailing of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: A prospective randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare traction table with manual traction for the reduction and nailing of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, two-center trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

72 elderly patients with AO/OTA 31A2 and 31A3 proximal femur fractures were randomized to undergo surgery with either manual traction (MT) or traction table (TT) facilitated intramedullary nailing. The demographics and fracture characteristics, duration of preparation and surgery, total anaesthesia time, fluoroscopy time, blood loss, number of assistants, early post-operative radiological evaluations and 6th month functional and radiological outcomes were evaluated. Data of 64 patients attending 6th month follow-up examination were evaluated statistically.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between groups regarding demographics and fracture characteristics. In the manual traction group, there was a significant time gain in respect of the positioning and preparation period (18.0±1.6min in MT group, 29.0±2.4min in TT group) (p<0.05). In terms of total anaesthesia time (Preparation+surgery) approximately 6min of difference was observed in favor of MT group (72.8±14.0min for MT and 78.6±6.5min for TT, [p<0.05]). Median number of assistants needed was significantly lower in TT group (2 assistants [1-3]) in MT group and (1 assistant [1,2]) in TT group [p<0.05]). There was no significant difference between two groups regarding other surgical and outcome parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual traction reduced the preparation time and total anaesthesia duration, despite an increase in number of surgical assistant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Expandable proximal femoral nail versus gamma proximal femoral nail for the treatment of AO/OTA 31A1-3 fractures

INTRODUCTION

The gamma-proximal femoral nail (GPFN) and the expandable proximal femoral nail (EPFN) are two commonly used intramedullary devices for the treatment of AO 31A1-3 proximal femur fractures. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and complication rates in patients treated by both devices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 299 patients (149 in the GPFN group and 150 in the EPFN group, average age 83.6 years) were treated for AO 31A1-3 proximal femur fractures in our institution between July 2008 and February 2013. Time from presentation to surgery, level of experience of the surgeon, operative time, amount of blood loss and number of blood transfusions were recorded. Postoperative radiological variables, including peg/screw location, tip to apex distance and orthopaedic complications, as, malunion, nonunion, surgical wound infection rates, cutouts, periprosthetic fractures and the incidence of non-orthopaedic complications. Functional results were estimated using the modified Harris Hip Score, and quality of life was queried by the SF-36 questionnaire.

RESULTS

The GPFN and the EPFN fixation methods were similar in terms of functional outcomes, complication rates and quality of life assessments. More patients (107 vs. 73) from the GPFN group were operated within 48 h from presentation (44.8 h vs. 49.9 h for the EPFN group, p=0.351), and their surgery duration and hospitalisation were significantly longer (18.5 days vs. 26 days, respectively, p<0.001). The GPFN patients were frequently operated by junior surgeons: 90% (135) while 50.6% (76) of the EPFN operations were performed by senior doctors. Other intraoperative measures were similar between groups. Cutout was the most common complication affecting 6.7% of the GPFN group and 3.3% of the EPFN group (p=0.182).

CONCLUSIONS

Good clinical outcomes and low complication rates in the GPFN and the EPFN groups indicate essentially equivalent safety and reliability on the part of both devices for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures.