International Orthopaedics

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 197–203 | Cite as

Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices

Original Article


The choice between dynamic screw-intramedullary nail (DSIN) devices and dynamic screw-plate (DSP) devices for the fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures remains controversial. This study presents a meta-analysis of fixation failures in unstable trochanteric femoral fractures using DSP devices or DSIN devices. Two independent assessors selected randomised controlled trials using a range of electronic databases, as well as reference lists of selected articles. A study quality checklist was used. The occurrence of fixation failure, in particular cut-out, was the primary subject of analysis using descriptive statistics and random-effect meta-analyses. Seventeen trials were identified. Meta-analyses showed no significant difference in the frequency of implant-related complications between the two types of devices. Iatrogenic femoral fractures associated with the use of DSIN devices represent a rare, but persistent, risk. There was a tendency for less frequent cut-out with intramedullary devices compared with DSP devices.


Femoral Fracture Unstable Fracture Fixation Failure Gamma Nail Cochrane Control Trial Register 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Le choix entre clou centro-médullaire avec vis dynamique et vis-plaque dynamique pour la fixation des fractures trochantériennes instables reste controversé. Cette étude présente une méta-analyse d'échecs de la fixation des fractures trochantériennes instables utilisant ces deux procédés. Deux observateurs indépendants ont selectioné des études cliniques randomisées utilisant plusieurs bases de données électroniques, aussi bien que les listes de référence des articles sélectionnés. Une liste de contrôle de la qualité de l'étude a été utilisée. L'événement d'échec de la fixation, en particulier la protrusion articulaire, était le sujet fondamental d'analyse. Dix-sept études cliniques randomisées ont été identifiées. La méta-analyse n'a montré aucune différence notable dans la fréquence des complications liées à l'implant entre les deux types de matériel. Les fractures fémorales iatrogène associées à l'usage de matériel centro-médullaire représentent un risque rare, mais persistant. Il y avait une tendance à des protrusions articulaires moins fréquents avec le système intramédullaire comparé avec les vis-plaque dynamiques.


  1. 1.
    Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM (2001) Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 15:394–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahrengart L, Tornkvist H, Fornander P, Thorngren KG, Pasanen L, Wahlstrom P, Honkonen S, Lindgren U (2002) A randomized study of the compression hip screw and Gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clin Orthop 209–222Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM (1998) Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop 348:87–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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] 73:330–334Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS (1995) Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury 26:615–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egger M, Smith GD, O'Rourke K (2001) Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Smith G D, Altman DG (eds) Systematic Reviews in Health Care—meta-analysis in context. BMJ Publishing, London pp 3–19Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN (1997) Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 315:1533–1537PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fornander P, Thorngren K-G, Törnqvist H, Ahrengart L, Lindgren U (1994) Swedish experience with the Gamma nail versus sliding hip screw in 209 randomised cases. Int J Orthop Trauma 4:118–122Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gehrchen PM, Nielsen JO, Olesen B (1993) Poor reproducibility of Evans' classification of the trochanteric fracture. Assessment of 4 observers in 52 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 64:71–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldhagen PR, O'Connor DR, Schwarze D, Schwartz E (1994) A prospective comparative study of the compression hip screw and the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 8:367–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guyer P, Landolt M, Keller H, Eberle C (1993) The Gamma nail in per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures—alternative or complementary to the DHS? A prospective randomised study. In: Marti R K, Dunki Jacobs P B (eds) Proximal femoral fractures—operative technique and complications. Medical Press, London pp 481–498Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P, Fabeck L, Smets P, Bertens CL, Delince PE (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] 80:618–630Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 33:23–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoffmann R, Schmidmaier G, Schulz R, Schutz M, Sudkamp NP (1999) [Classic nail versus DHS. A prospective randomised study of fixation of trochanteric femur fractures]. Unfallchirurg 102:182–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnstone DJ, Radford WJ, Parnell EJ (1993) Interobserver variation using the AO/ASIF classification of long bone fractures. Injury 24:163–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD (2000) Hip fractures—a practical guide to management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kukla C, Heinz T, Berger G, Kwasny O, Rosenberger A, Vécsei V (1997) Gamma nail vs. dynamic hip screw in 120 patients over 60 years—a randomized trial. Acta Chir Austriaca 290–293Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kyle RF, Cabanela ME, Russell TA, Swiontkowski MF, Winquist RA, Zuckerman JD, Schmidt AH, Koval KJ (1994) Fractures of the proximal part of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 76:924–950Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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] 74:345–351Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madsen JE, Naess L, Aune AK, Alho A, Ekeland A, Stromsoe K (1998) Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the Gamma nail and compression hip screw. J Orthop Trauma 12:241–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O'Brien PJ, Meek RN, Blachut PA, Broekhuyse HM, Sabharwal S (1995) Fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: gamma nail versus dynamic hip screw. A randomized, prospective study. Can J Surg 38:516–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pahlplatz PVM, Langius FB (1993) Comparing the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw in the treatment of pertrochanteric fractures. Preliminary results of a prospective randomised study. In: Marti RK, Dunki Jacobs P B (eds) Proximal femoral fractures—operative techniques and complications. Medical Press, London pp 475–480Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park SR, Kang JS, Kim HS, Lee WH, Kim YH (1998) Treatment of intertrochanteric fracture with the Gamma AP locking nail or by a compression hip screw—a randomised prospective trial. Int Orthop 22:157–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2002) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. In: The Cochrane Library, Update Software, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parker MJ, Handoll HH, Bhonsle S, Gillespie WJ (2002) Condylocephalic nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. In: The Cochrane Library, Update Software, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walheim G, Barrios C, Stark A, Brostrom LA, Olsson E (1990) Postoperative improvement of walking capacity in patients with trochanteric hip fracture: a prospective analysis 3 and 6 months after surgery. J Orthop Trauma 4:137–143PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AO Clinical Investigation and DocumentationAO ASIF CenterClavadelerstrasseSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations