Skip to main content
Log in

Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the fixation outcome between the sliding hip screw (SHS) and intramedullary nails (IMN) in stable and unstable extracapsular proximal femoral fractures. All randomised controlled studies comparing IMNs with a SHS were considered for inclusion. Data was independently extracted and trial methodology assessed. Twenty-four randomised trials involving 3,202 patients with 3,279 fractures were included. Pooled results gave no statistically significant difference in the cut-out rate between the IMN and SHS (41/1,556 vs 37/1,626; relative risk 1.19; 95% confidence interval 0.78–1.82). Total failure rate (1,03/1,495 and 58/1,565, relative risk 1.83; 95% confidence interval 1.35–2.50) and re-operation rate (57/1,357 and 35/1,415, relative risk 1.63; 95% confidence interval 1.11–2.40) were greater with the IMN compared with the SHS. There was no evidence for a reduced failure rate with IMN in unstable trochanteric fractures.

Résumé

Le but de cette méta-analyse était de comparer le résultat de la fixation par vis glissante et clou centromédullaire dans les fractures extracapsulaires fémorales proximales stables et instables. Toutes les études randomisées et contrôlées qui comparent des clous centromédullaires avec une vis glissante ont été considérées pour l’inclusion. Les données ont été extraites indépendamment, et la méthodologie de l’étude étudiée. 24 essais randomisés qui concernent 3,202 malades avec 3,279 fractures ont été inclus. Les résultats mis en commun n’ont donné aucune différence statistiquement notable entre le clou centromédullaire et la vis glissante (41/1,556 vs 37/1,626; risque relatif 1.19; 95% intervalle de confidence 0.78–1.82). Le taux d’échec total (103/1,495 vs 58/1,565, risque relatif 1.83; 95% intervalle de confiance 1.35–2.50) et tle aux de la ré - opération (57/1,357 vs 35/1,415, risque relatif 1.63; 95% intervalle de confiance 1.11–2.40) étaient plus grands avec le clou centromédullaire comparé a la vis glissante. Il n’y avait aucune preuve qu’il y ait un taux de défaillance réduit avec le clou centromédullaire dans les fractures trochanterienne instables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown C, McQueen MM (2001) Prospective randomised controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic hip screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractured femur. J Orthop Trauma 15 (6):394–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Audige L, Hanson B, Swiontkowski MF (2004) Answer to Handoll and Parker. Int Orthop 28:62–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Audige L, Hanson B, Swiontkowski MF (2003) Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices. Int Orthop 27:197–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Aune AK, Ekeland A, Odegaard B, Grogaard B, Alho A (1994) Gamma nail vs compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures. 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 65:127–130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM (1998) Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 348:87–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:330–334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS (1995) Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury 26(9):615–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fornander P, Thorngren K-G, Tornqvist H, Ahrengart L, Lindgren U (1994) Swedish experience with the gamma nail vs. sliding hip screw in 209 randomised cases. International Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 4(3):118–122

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hardy DC, Descamps P, Krallis P, Fabeck L, Smets P, Bertens CL et al (1998) Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(5):618–630

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrington P, Nihal A, Singhania AK, Howell FR (2002) Intramedullary hip screw versus sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. Injury 33(1):23–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoffman CW, Lynskey TG (1996) Intertrochanteric fractures of the femur: a randomized prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the Ambi hip screw. Aust NZ J Surg 66(3):151–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY, Hui PW (1992) Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for peritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74(3):345–351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH (2004) Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures; management and current controversies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:398–410

    Google Scholar 

  15. O’Brien PJ, Meek RN, Blachut PA, Broekhuyse HM, Sabharwal S (1995) Fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: gamma nail versus dynamic hip screw. A randomised, prospective study. Can J Surg 38(6):516–520

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Park SR, Kang JS, Kim HS, Lee WH (1998) Treatment of intertrochanteric fracture with the gamma AP locking nail or by a compression hip screw-a randomised prospective trial. Int Orthop 22(3):157–160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Parker MJ, Pryor GA (1996) Gamma nailing verses DHS for extracapsular femoral fractures: meta-analysis of ten randomised trails. Int Orthop 20:163–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Parker MJ (1999) Proximal Femoral Fractures. In: Pynsent PB, Fairbank JCT, Carr AJ (eds) Classification of musculoskeletal trauma, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  19. Parker MJ, Handoll HHG (2004) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  20. Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):789–793

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P (2002) Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degree screw-plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84(3):372–381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saudan M, Lubbeke A, Sadowski C, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P (2002) Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail? A randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma 16(6):386–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schipper IB, Marti RK, van der Werken C (2004) Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation review of literature. Injury 35:141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van der Heijden FHWM, den Hoed PT, Kerver AJH, van Vugt AB (2004) Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures: randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the Proximal Femoral Nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:86–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Wynn Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, H.W., Johnston, P. & Parker, M. Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures. International Orthopaedics (SICO 30, 69–78 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0028-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0028-0

Keywords

Navigation