Variation of implant use in A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures : a study from the National Hip Fracture Database of England and Wales

AIMS

Patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines.

METHODS

We used the NHFD to identify all operations for fixation of trochanteric fractures in England and Wales between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. A uniform price band from each of three hip fracture implant manufacturers was used to set cost implications alongside variation in implant use.

RESULTS

We identified 18,156 A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures in 162 centres. Of these, 13,483 (74.3%) underwent SHS fixation, 2,352 (13.0%) were managed with short IMN, and 2,321 (12.8%) were managed with long IMN. Total cost of IMN added up to £1.89 million in 2021, and the clinical justification for this is unclear since rates of IMN use varied from 0% to 97% in different centres.

CONCLUSION

Most trochanteric hip fractures are managed with SHS, in keeping with national guidelines. There is considerable variance between hospitals for implant choice, despite the lack of evidence for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of more expensive nailing systems. This suggests either a lack of awareness of national guidelines or a choice not to follow them. We encourage provider units to reassess their practice if outwith the national norm. Funding bodies should examine implant use closely in this population to prevent resource waste at a time of considerable health austerity.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):741-745.

Multiple screws versus sliding hip screws in femoral neck fractures: A protocol of cohort study

BACKGROUND

There has been a paucity of cohort trials directly comparing multiple cannulated screws (MCS) and sliding hip screws (SHS) in femoral neck fractures at any level. Thus, a well-conducted clinical trial with an adequate sample size is urgently needed. We undertake a retrospective study to compare outcomes in patients who undertake MCS or SHS fixation for femoral neck fractures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of femoral neck fractures performed with SHS or MCS between February 2016 and June 2018 was conducted with Institutional Review Board approval in the First Affiliated Hospital of Dali University of Orthopedic Trauma. All cases were performed by a single surgeon. Of these, we included 180 patients (90 hips) that were performed surgery in treatment of femoral neck fractures. All patients received the same standardized postoperative multimodal pain protocol and the same postoperative rehabilitation program. The primary endpoint was Harris Hip Score. Secondary outcome measures include operation time, length of hospital stay, incision length, patient satisfaction, and postoperative complications. Multivariate linear and regression analyses was used to identify independent predictors of outcome. A P-value of <.05 was defined as statistical significance.

RESULTS

We hypothesize that both treatments provide comparable outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5638).

Network meta-analysis of surgical treatment for unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures

In this network meta-analysis, we determined the optimal surgical method for treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures. We searched the EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Medline databases for studies evaluating sliding hip screws (SHS), gamma nail (GN) or proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) methods, and included nine randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. Our analysis showed no differences in the rates of complications between SHS and PFNA relative to GN (p > 0.05). However, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) score for PFNA (77.6%) was higher than the SUCRA scores for GN (65%) and SHS (7.5%). This suggests PFNA is the better surgical method than GN or SHS for unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.