Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Short versus long intramedullary nails for treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (AO 31-A1 and AO 31-A2): a systematic review

  • Up-to date Review and Case Report • LOWER LIMB - FRACTURES
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Intramedullary nails are used increasingly in the surgical treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (IFFs). However, controversy has developed regarding the length of the nail itself. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in reoperation rate, as well as operating time, length of hospital stay and 1-year mortality between short and long intramedullary nails in IFF-type AO 31-A1 and AO 31-A2.

Data sources

A search was conducted using PUBMED, Embase and Cochrane Central (January 1, 2000–August 1, 2018). Articles written in English, German or Scandinavian language were included.

Study selection

Studies with patients > 18 years having an IFF comparing short nail with long nail and a least one of the clinical outcomes on interest (reoperation rate, operating time, length of hospital stay, 1-year mortality) were included.

Data extraction

A total of 2680 studies were identified and screened according to PRISMA guidelines. Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and non-randomized studies was used to assess the risk of bias.

Data synthesis

Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated.

Conclusions

No difference in complication rate leading to reoperation was found in the individual studies or in the meta-analysis [OR 0.89 (0.49; 1.16)]. There is no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two nail cohorts; a shorter operating time inserting a short nail compared to inserting a long nail was found (p < 0.0001). In the meta-analysis, we found no difference in 1-year mortality [OR 1.20 (0.80; 1.79)].

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1726–1733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Jarvinen M (1996) Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone 18(1 Suppl):57s–63s

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Veronese N, Maggi S (2018) Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture. Injury 49(8):1458–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN (2008) Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American board of orthopaedic surgery database. J Bone Jt surg Am 90(4):700–707. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.g.00517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Forte ML, Virnig BA, Eberly LE, Swiontkowski MF, Feldman R, Bhandari M, Kane RL (2010) Provider factors associated with intramedullary nail use for intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Jt surg Am 92(5):1105–1114. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.I.00295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gjertsen JE, Dybvik E, Furnes O, Fevang JM, Havelin LI, Matre K, Engesaeter LB (2017) Improved outcome after hip fracture surgery in Norway. Acta Orthop 88(5):505–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1344456

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Baldwin PC 3rd, Lavender RC, Sanders R, Koval KJ (2016) Controversies in intramedullary fixation for intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma 30(12):635–641. https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0000000000000652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (in press)

  10. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hou Z, Bowen TR, Irgit KS, Matzko ME, Andreychik CM, Horwitz DS, Smith WR (2013) Treatment of pertrochanteric fractures (OTA 31-A1 and A2): long versus short cephalomedullary nailing. J Orthop Trauma 27(6):318–324. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e31826fc11f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boone C, Carlberg KN, Koueiter DM, Baker KC, Sadowski J, Wiater PJ, Nowinski GP, Grant KD (2014) Short versus long intramedullary nails for treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1 and A2). J Orthop Trauma 28(5):e96–e100. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182a7131c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vaughn J, Cohen E, Vopat BG, Kane P, Abbood E, Born C (2015) Complications of short versus long cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric femur fractures, minimum 1 year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol 25(4):665–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1557-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guo XF, Zhang KM, Fu HB, Cao W, Dong Q (2015) A comparative study of the therapeutic effect between long and short intramedullary nails in the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures in the elderly. Chin J Traumatol 18(6):332–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Krigbaum H, Takemoto S, Kim HT, Kuo AC (2016) Costs and complications of short versus long cephalomedullary nailing of OTA 31-A2 proximal femur fractures in U.S. veterans. J Orthop Trauma 30(3):125–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0000000000000521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hong CC, Nashi N, Makandura MC, Tan JH, Peter L, Murphy D (2017) The long and short of cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fracture. Singap Med J 58(2):85–91. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hesse B, Gachter A (2004) Complications following the treatment of trochanteric fractures with the gamma nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(10):692–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0744-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH (2004) Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. Instr Course Lect 53:441–454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Norris R, Bhattacharjee D, Parker MJ (2012) Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients. Injury 43(6):706–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Georgiannos D, Lampridis V, Bisbinas I (2014) Complications following treatment of trochanteric fractures with the gamma3 nail: Is the latest version of gamma nail superior to its predecessor? Surg Res Pract 2014:143598. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/143598

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Curtis R, Goldhahn J, Schwyn R, Regazzoni P, Suhm N (2005) Fixation principles in metaphyseal bone—a patent based review. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S54–S64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1763-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haidukewych GJ (2009) Intertrochanteric fractures: ten tips to improve results. J Bone Jt surg Am 91(3):712–719

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dunn J, Kusnezov N, Bader J, Waterman BR, Orr J, Belmont PJ (2016) Long versus short cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review. J Orthop Traumatol 17(4):361–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-016-0405-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Rapp K, Becker C, Lamb SE, Icks A, Klenk J (2008) Hip fractures in institutionalized elderly people: incidence rates and excess mortality. J Bone Miner Res 23(11):1825–1831. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.080702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schnell S, Friedman SM, Mendelson DA, Bingham KW, Kates SL (2010) The 1-year mortality of patients treated in a hip fracture program for elders. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 1(1):6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2151458510378105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS, Vanderschueren D, Milisen K, Velkeniers B, Boonen S (2010) Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med 152(6):380–390. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Khan R, Fernandez C, Kashifl F, Shedden R, Diggory P (2002) Combined orthogeriatric care in the management of hip fractures: a prospective study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84(2):122–124

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hershkovitz A, Polatov I, Beloosesky Y, Brill S (2010) Factors affecting mortality of frail hip-fractured elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 51(2):113–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2009.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McGuire KJ, Bernstein J, Polsky D, Silber JH (2004) The 2004 Marshall Urist award: delays until surgery after hip fracture increases mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:294–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Moja L, Piatti A, Pecoraro V, Ricci C, Virgili G, Salanti G, Germagnoli L, Liberati A, Banfi G (2012) Timing matters in hip fracture surgery: patients operated within 48 hours have better outcomes. A meta-analysis and meta-regression of over 190,000 patients. PLoS ONE 7(10):e46175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Endo Y, Aharonoff GB, Zuckerman JD, Egol KA, Koval KJ (2005) Gender differences in patients with hip fracture: a greater risk of morbidity and mortality in men. J Orthop Trauma 19(1):29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Holt G, Smith R, Duncan K, Finlayson DF, Gregori A (2008) Early mortality after surgical fixation of hip fractures in the elderly: an analysis of data from the scottish hip fracture audit. J Bone Jt Surg Br 90(10):1357–1363. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.90b10.21328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Prestmo A, Hagen G, Sletvold O, Helbostad JL, Thingstad P, Taraldsen K, Lydersen S, Halsteinli V, Saltnes T, Lamb SE, Johnsen LG, Saltvedt I (2015) Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 385(9978):1623–1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62409-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital of Southern Denmark, Kresten Philipsensvej 15, 6200, Aabenraa, Denmark

    Pernille Bovbjerg

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, J. B. Winsløws Vej 4, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Lonnie Froberg & Hagen Schmal

Authors
  1. Pernille Bovbjerg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lonnie Froberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hagen Schmal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pernille Bovbjerg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Bovbjerg, Dr. Froberg and Dr. Schmal have nothing to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bovbjerg, P., Froberg, L. & Schmal, H. Short versus long intramedullary nails for treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (AO 31-A1 and AO 31-A2): a systematic review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29, 1823–1831 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02495-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02495-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation