Comparison and analysis of reoperations in two different treatment protocols for trochanteric hip fractures - postoperative technical complications with dynamic hip screw, intramedullary nail and Medoff sliding plate

Background

In treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures dynamic hip screw and Medoff sliding plate devices are designed to allow secondary fracture impaction, whereas intramedullary nails aim to maintain fracture alignment. Different treatment protocols are used by two similar Swedish regional emergency care hospitals. Dynamic hip screw is used for fractures considered as stable within the respective treatment protocol, whereas one treatment protocol (Medoff sliding plate/dynamic hip screw) uses biaxial Medoff sliding plate for unstable pertrochanteric fractures and uniaxial Medoff sliding plate for subtrochanteric fractures, the second (intramedullary nail/dynamic hip screw) uses intramedullary nail for subtrochanteric fractures and for pertrochanteric fractures with intertrochanteric comminution or subtrochanteric extension. All orthopedic surgeries are registered in a regional database.

Methods

All consecutive trochanteric fracture operations during 2011–2012 (n = 856) and subsequent technical reoperations (n = 40) were derived from the database. Reoperations were analysed and classified into the categories adjustment (percutaneous removal of the locking screw of the Medoff sliding plate or the intramedullary nail, followed by fracture healing) or minor, intermediate (reosteosynthesis) or major (hip joint replacement, Girdlestone or persistent nonunion) technical complications.

Results

The relative risk of intermediate or major technical complications was 4.2 (1.2–14) times higher in unstable pertrochanteric fractures and 4.6 (1.1–19) times higher in subtrochanteric fractures with treatment protocol: intramedullary nail/dynamic hip screw, compared to treatment protocol: Medoff sliding plate/dynamic hip screw. Overall rates of intermediate and major technical complications in unstable pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures were with biaxial Medoff sliding plate 0.68%, with uniaxial Medoff sliding plate 1.4%, with dynamic hip screw 3.4% and with intramedullary nail 7.2%.

Conclusions

The treatment protocol based on use of biaxial Medoff sliding plate for unstable pertrochanteric and uniaxial Medoff sliding plate for subtrochanteric fractures reduced the risk of severe technical complications compared to using the treatment protocol based on dynamic hip screw and intramedullary nail.

Comparative outcome of PFNA, Gamma nails, PCCP, Medoff plate, LISS and dynamic hip screws for fixation in elderly trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The ideal implant for the treatment of an unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture is still a matter of discussion. The aim of this systematic review is to conduct a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes between dynamic hip screws (DHS), Medoff sliding plating, percutaneous compression plating (PCCP), proximal femoral nails (PFN), Gamma nails and less invasive stabilization system fixation in femoral trochanteric fractures in the elderly. These clinical outcomes consist of total intra-operative time, intra-operative fluoroscopy time, intra-operative blood loss, blood component transfusion, length of hospital stay, postoperative general complications, wound complications, late complications and reoperation rates. This systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Scopus search engines for RCTs comparing clinical outcomes between treatments from inception to February 22, 2015. Thirty-six of 785 studies identified were eligible. Compared to the other implants, PCCP showed the lowest total operative time and units of blood transfusion with an unstandardized mean difference (UMD) of 29.27 min (95% CI 5.24, 53.50) and 0.89 units (95% CI 0.52, 1.25). The lowest incidence of general complications, wound complications and late complications of PCCP was 0.09 (95% CI 0.04, 0.18), 0.01 (95% CI 0.01, 0.04) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.02, 0.11), respectively, when compared to others. The lowest fluoroscopic time was with DHS with an UMD of 0.24 min (95% CI 0.16, 0.32), whereas the lowest blood loss and shortest hospital stay were with PFN with an UMD of 233.61 ml of blood loss (95% CI 153.17, 314.04) and 7.23 days of hospital stay (95% CI 7.15, 7.31) when compared to all other fixation methods. Reoperation rates of all implants had no statistically significant difference. The network meta-analysis suggested that fixation with PCCP significantly shortens operative time and decreases the units of blood transfusion required, while also lowering risks of general complications, wound complications and late complications when compared to fixation. Use of PFN showed the least intra-operative blood loss and shortest hospital stay. Multiple active treatment comparisons indicate that PCCP fixation in trochanteric fractures in the elderly is the treatment of choice in terms of intra-operative outcomes and postoperative complications.