Search

Background Most unstable trochanteric fractures are treated with internal fixation and often with high complication rates. Hemiarthroplasty might be an alternative method in difficult condition, especially in unstable comminuted fracture in fragile bone. However, few have investigated the long-term outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for unstable trochanteric fracture. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of trochanteric fracture after primary hemiarthroplasty using competing risk analysis on their long-term outcomes, including mortality, readmission and reoperation. Methods We studied a total of 2798 patients over 60 years old, with a mean age of 79 years, of which 68% are females and 67.23% have at least one comorbidity. They underwent a hemiarthroplasty for unstable trochanteric fracture during the period between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 and were follow-up until the end of 2012, or death. Survival analysis and Cox model were used to characterize mortality. Competing risk analysis and Fine and Gray model were used to estimate the cumulative incidences of the first readmission and the first reoperation. Results The follow-up mortality rate for 1-year was 17.94%; 2-year, 29.76%; 5-year, 56.8%; and 10-year, 83.38%. The cumulative incidence of the first readmission was 16.4% for 1-year and 22.44% for 3-year. The cumulative incidence of the first reoperation was 13.87% for 1-year, 18.11% for 2-year, 25.79% for 5-year, and 38.24% for 10-year. Male gender, older age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and lower insured amount were all risk factors for the overall mortality. Older age and higher CCI were risk factors for the first readmission. Older age was a protective factor for reoperation, which is likely due to the competing death. Conclusions The mortality and revision rates after hemiarthroplasty for unstable trochanteric fracture are acceptable as a salvage procedure for this fragile sub-population.

Background: For many years, the sliding hip screw and plate had been the gold standard in treating pertrochanteric fractures. Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in intramedullary nailing. Intramedullary devices, although technically difficult seems to have a biomechanical advantage over laterally fixed side plates2.Literature is full of articles categorizing DHS in stable Trochanteric fractures, (31-A1.1, A1.2, A1.3 and 31-A2.1) and use of intramedullary devices PFN as implant of choice in unstable trochanteric, sub trochanteric fractures and particularly in reverse oblique (all A 31.3). But there is always a grey zone of decision of implant to be applied in unstable type A2.2 and A2.3 fractures. This study was designed to compare functional outcome and complications of the PFN device with those of a traditional extramedullary device, the Dynamic hip screw (DHS), inpatients with unstable type 2 trochanteric fracture. (AO/ASIF Classification 31-A2.2 & 31-A2.3) Method: In this Randomised control prospectively, designed study 60 consecutive patients having Fracture according to AO/ASIF classification 31-A2.2 and 31-A2.3 are included and randomized to either PFN or DHS group. The functional outcome and clinical results of the patients was evaluated and graded using HARRIS HIP SCORE system. Results: The average blood loss in PFN was 88.3ml while in DHS it was 318.33ml. Hospital stay after surgery in PFN was average days 4.13 DHS was average days 5.63. Harris hip score in PFN 22 (73.33%) were good, 06 (20%) were fair and 02 (6.66%) while with DHS 12 (40%)were good, 12(40%) were fair and 06 (20%).Average time of union in PFN was 13.4 weeks in DHS was 15.1 weeks. Conclusion: In Type 2 unstable trochanteric fractures PFN gives advantage of lesser blood loss, shorter operating time, faster union, better functional outcome with low complication rate as compared to DHS.

Objective: Despite new developments in the management of osteoporotic fractures, complications like screw cutout are still found in the fixation of proximal femur fractures even with biomechanically proven better implants like proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). The purpose of this cadaveric study was to investigate the biomechanical stability of this device in relation to two common positions (center-center and inferior-center) of the helical blade in the femoral head in unstable trochanteric fractures. Materials and Methods: Eight pairs of human cadaveric femurs were used; in one group [center-center (C-C) group], the helical blade of PFNA was fixed randomly in central position both in anteroposterior and lateral view, whereas in the other group it was fixed in inferior one-third position in anteroposterior and in central position in lateral view [inferior-center (I-C) group]. Unstable intertrochanteric fracture was created and each specimen was loaded cyclically till load to failure Results: Angular and rotational displacements were significantly higher within the C-C group compared to the I-C group in both unloaded and loaded condition. Loading to failure was higher in the I-C group compared to the C-C group. No statistical significance was found for this parameter. Correlations between tip apex distance, cyclic loading which lead to femoral head displacement, and ultimate load to failure showed a significant positive relationship. Conclusion: The I-C group was superior to the C-C group and provided better biomechanical stability for angular and rotational displacement. This study would be a stimulus for further experimental studies with larger number specimens and complex loading protocols at multicentres.

Introduction: Biomechanically proximal femoral nail (PFN) is a better choice of implant, still it is associated with screw breakage, cut out of screw through femoral head, Z effect, reverse Z effect, and lateral migration of screws. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results of augmented PFN in terms of prevention of postoperative complications and failure rates in unstable trochanteric fractures. Material and methods: We carried out a prospective study of 82 cases with unstable trochanteric femoral fractures from April 2010 to December 2015. Forty-two females and 40 males in the age group between 58 and 81 years were included in this study. There were 45 cases of AO 31 A2 (2.2, 2.3) and 37 cases of AO 31 A3 (3.1, 3.2, 3.3). Fractures were fixed by PFN with augmentation by an additional screw from trochanter to inferior quadrant of femoral head or cerclage wire to strengthen the lateral trochanteric wall. Results: The bone healing is observed in all the cases in the mean period of 14.2 weeks. Nine patients developed complications, including lateral migration of neck screws (n = 5), Z effect (n = 1), infection (n = 2), and breakage of distal interlocking bolt in one case. Removal of screws was required in five cases. Patients were followed up for a mean of 8.4 months. At the end of follow-up the Salvati and Wilson hip function was 32 (out of 40) in 88% of patients. Conclusion: The stabilization of lateral trochanteric wall with additional screw or cerclage wire increases the stability of construct.