Treatment of stable extra-capsular hip fractures with a sliding screw versus short gamma nail: a retrospective study of 102 patients

  • Abhay R. Patel
  • Chris Boyes
  • Vladimir ShurEmail author
Original Article


This is a retrospective study of 102 patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures comparing the operative results of short gamma nail™ fixation with the sliding hip screw. The average patient age in the study is 83 years (range 52–94 years) with 87% females. The transfusion requirements between the two groups did not differ but a slightly larger decrease in hemoglobin levels was seen at 48 h in the gamma nail group. In neither group were there any intra-operative fractures or infections which led to a return to the operating room. The average length of stay for both groups was identical at 6.9 days. Twenty-seven short gamma nail patients and 18 compression hip screw patients were followed for 6 months. There were no instances of cut-out in either group but the short gamma nail group had middle/middle lag screw placement on the AP and lateral views more often than the compression hip screw (50%) group at 6 months. We conclude that the short gamma nail can be used effectively for the fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures without the occurrence of potentially devastating complications such as intraoperative femur fracture, periprosthetic fracture or lag screw cut-out.


Intertrochanteric fractures Femur Hip Locking nailing Lag screws 

Vissage versus enclouage gamma dans les fractures de la hanche


Les auteurs présentent une étude rétrospective de 102 patients avec fracture inter-trochantérienne, comparant les résultats opératoires de l’enclouage avec clou Gamma court et du vissage par vis coulissante à compression. L’âge moyen des patients était de 83 ans (extrêmes 52–94) avec 87% de femmes. Les besoins transfusionnels entre les deux groupes ne montraient guère de différences, si ce n’est une très légère augmentation de la perte d’hémoglobine au bout de 48 heures dans le groupe des enclouages avec clou Gamma. Il n’y eut ni fractures per-opératoires ni infections nécessitant le retour en salle d’opération dans aucun des deux groupes. Le séjour moyen était identique dans les deux groupes, soit 6.9 jours. 27 cas de clous Gamma et 18 de vissages ont pu être suivis pendant 6 mois. Il n’y eut aucun cas de dévissage dans les deux groupes, mais le groupe des clous Gamma courts comportait un plus grand nombre de positions centrées de la vis à compression sur les contrôles radiologiques antéro-postérieures et de profil, effectués à six mois, que le groupe des vissages seuls (50%). Les auteurs concluent que l’enclouage avec des clous Gammas courts peut être utilisé de façon efficace pour la fixation des fractures inter-trochantériennes sans risque de complications graves, telles des fractures per-opératoires du fémur, ou des fractures autour des implants ou encore des dévissages.

Mots clés

Fractures inter-trochantériennes Fémur Hanche Enclouage verrouillé Vis à compression 



The authors thank Dr. Joseph Feliccia and Dr. Howard Goodman for their assistance in creating and editing this study. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.


  1. 1.
    Adams CI, Robinson CM (2001) Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intrameduallary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 15(6):394–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahrengart L, Tornkvist H (2002) A randomized study of the compression hip screw and gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clin Orthop 401:209–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albared J, Palanca D (1996) Complications and technical problems with the gamma nail. Int Ortho 20:47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 24:111Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aune AK, Ekland A (1994) Gamma nail vs. compression screw trochanteric femoral fractures: 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 65:127–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bannister GC, Gibson AG (1990) The fixation and prognosis of trochanteric fractures: a randomized prospective controlled trial. Clin Orthop 254:242–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baumgaertner GC, Gibson AG (1995) The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of pertrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1058–1064PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellabarba C, Herscovici D Jr (2000) Percutaneous treatment of pertrochanteric fractures using the gamma nail. Clin Orthop 375:30–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bridle SH, Patel AD (1991) Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur: a randomized prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:330–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis TR, Sher JL (1990) Intertrochanteric femoral fractures: mechanical failure after internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:26–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldhagen PR, O’Connor DR (1994) A prospective comparative study of the compression hip screw and the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 8:367–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hardy D, Descamps P (1998) Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:618–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haynes RC, Poll RG (1997) Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut-out with the gamma locking nail and AO dynamic screw. Injury 28:337–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoffman CC, Lynskey TG (1996) Intertrochanteric fractures of the femur a randomized prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the ambi hip screw. Aust N Z J Surg 66:151–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen JS (1975) Trochanteric femoral fractures treated with McLaughlin osteosynthesis. Orthop Scand 46:795–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leung KS, So WS (1992) Gamma nails and dynamic hip screw for pertrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74-B:345–351Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loch DA, Kyle RF (1998) Forces required to initiate sliding in second generation intramedullary nails. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1626–1631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahomed N, Harrington I (1994) Biomechanical analysis of the gamma nail and sliding hip screw. Clin Orthop 304:280–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parker MJ, Pryor GA (1996) Gamma versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fracture-meta-analysis of ten randomized trials. Int Orthop 20(3):163–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Radford PJ, Needoff M (1993) A prospective randomized comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):789–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robinson CM, Adams CI (2002) Implant-related fractures of the femur following hip fracture surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:1116–1122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenblum SF, Zuckerman JD (1992) A biochemical evaluation of the gamma nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:352–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sadowski C, Lubbeke A (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 84:372–380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Utrilla AL, Reig JS (2005) Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures a randomized, prospective, and comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 19(4):229–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Valverde J, Alonso MG (1998) Use of the gamma nail in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop 350:56–61PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMaimonides Medical CenterBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations