Skip to main content

Arthroplasty for unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures may offer a lower re-operation rate as compared to cephalomedullary nailing

International Orthopaedics volume 40, pages 15–20 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Cephalomedullary (CM) nailing is widely used for the treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures. Fixation failures with CM nailing tend to occur in unstable fracture patterns often necessitating revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the complications and clinical outcomes of primary arthroplasty to CM nailing for the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures.

Methods

We conducted an age-, sex-, and fracture type-matched case-controlled study and identified 29 patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for an unstable pertrochanteric fracture (AO/OTA classification type 31A2.2/3 and 31.A3) at our institution. Their outcome was compared to a matched control group of 29 patients treated with a CM nail.

Results

There was one major complication in the arthroplasty group (3.4 %), whereas there were six major complications in the nailing group (20.7 %) (P = 0.04). We found no significant difference between the groups with regards to blood loss, operative time, hospitalization time and the number of patients discharged to rehabilitation. Clinical outcome measured with Oxford hip score and SF-12 at the time of final follow-up was not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

Arthroplasty is a viable option for treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures in an elderly population. Arthroplasty may offer a lower re-operation rate in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures as compared to CM nailing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Cummings SR, Rubin SM, Black D (1990) The future of hip fractures in the United States. Numbers, costs, and potential effects of postmenopausal estrogen. Clin Orthop Relat Res 252:163–166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Braithwaite RS, Col NF, Wong JB (2003) Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:364–370

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnell O, Kanis JA (2004) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:897–902

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sahlstrand T (1974) The Richards compression and sliding hip screw system in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 45:213–219

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jensen JS, Tondevold E, Sonne-Holm S (1980) Stable trochanteric fractures. A comparative analysis of four methods of internal fixation. Acta Orthop Scand 51:811–816

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Evans EM (1949) The treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 31B:190–203

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pelet S, Arlettaz Y, Chevalley F (2001) Osteosynthesis of per- and subtrochanteric fractures by blade plate versus gamma nail. A randomized prospective study. Swiss Surg 7:126–133

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M (2002) Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84A:372–381

    Google Scholar 

  10. Matre K, Havelin LI, Gjertsen JE, Vinje T, Espehaug B, Fevang JM (2013) Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian hip fracture register. Injury 44:735–742

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuzyk PR, Lobo J, Whelan D, Zdero R, McKee MD, Schemitsch EH (2009) Biomechanical evaluation of extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation for reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23:31–38

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kashigar A, Vincent A, Gunton MJ, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk PR (2014) Predictors of failure for cephalomedullary nailing of proximal femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 96-B:1029–1034

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Andruszkow H, Frink M, Frömke C, Matityahu A, Zeckey C, Mommsen P, Suntardjo S, Krettek C, Hildebrand F (2012) Tip apex distance, hip screw placement, and neck shaft angle as potential risk factors for cut-out failure of hip screws after surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 36:2347–2354

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Inngul C, Hedbeck CJ, Blomfeldt R, Lapidus G, Ponzer S, Enocson A (2013) Unipolar hemiarthroplasty versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures: a 4 years follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop 37:2457–2464

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mäkinen TJ, Gunton M, Fichman SG, Kashigar A, Safir O, Kuzyk PRT (2015) Arthroplasty for pertrochanteric hip fractures. Orthop Clin North Am (in press)

  16. Goodman S, Pressman A, Saastamoinen H, Gross A (2004) Modified sliding trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:1039–1041

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kosashvili Y, Raz G, Backstein D, Lulu OB, Gross AE, Safir O (2013) Fresh-stored osteochondral allografts for the treatment of femoral head defects: surgical technique and preliminary results. Int Orthop 37:1001–1006

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kayali C, Agus H, Ozluk S, Sanli C (2006) Treatment for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients: internal fixation versus cone hemiarthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 14:240–244

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shen J, Wang DL, Chen GX, Yang HL, Li L, Wei MX, Cai XQ, Yu ZH, Cheng L, Zhang XX, Zou TM (2012) Bipolar hemiarthroplasty compared with internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. J Orthop Sci 17:722–729

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim S-Y, Kim Y-G, Hwang J-K (2005) Cementless calcar-replacement hemiarthroplasty compared with intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2186–2192

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stappaerts KH, Deldycke J, Broos PL, Staes FF, Rommens PM, Claes P (1995) Treatment of unstable peritrochanteric fractures in elderly patients with a compression hip screw or with a Vandeputte (VDP) endoprosthesis: a prospective randomised study. J Orthop Trauma 9:292–297

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Claes H, Broos P, Stappaerts K (1985) Pertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients: treatment with Ender’s nails, blade-plate or endoprosthesis? Injury 16:261–264

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sinno K, Sakr M, Girard J, Khatib H (2010) The effectiveness of primary bipolar arthroplasty in treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. N Am J Med Sci 2:561–568

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tang P, Hu F, Shen J, Zhang L, Zhang L (2012) Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus hemiarthroplasty: a study for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Injury 43:876–881

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Haentjens P, Casteleyn PP, De Boeck H, Handelberg F, Opdecam P (1989) Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures in elderly patients: primary bipolar arthroplasty compared with internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:1214–1224

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Matthew McDonald is acknowledged for providing the data from our institution’s prospectively collected database.

Conflict of interest

The authors state there are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Mount Sinai Hospital, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada

    Simcha G. Fichman, Tatu J. Mäkinen, Oleg Safir, Alex Vincent, Benjamin Lozano, Aidin Kashigar & Paul R. T. Kuzyk

Authors
  1. Simcha G. Fichman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatu J. Mäkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oleg Safir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alex Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin Lozano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aidin Kashigar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul R. T. Kuzyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatu J. Mäkinen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fichman, S.G., Mäkinen, T.J., Safir, O. et al. Arthroplasty for unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures may offer a lower re-operation rate as compared to cephalomedullary nailing. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 15–20 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2794-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2794-7

Keywords

  • Pertrochanteric fracture
  • Unstable fracture
  • Arthroplasty
  • Cephalomedullary nailing
  • Case–control study