Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Orthopaedics logoLink to International Orthopaedics
. 2003 May 7;27(4):197–203. doi: 10.1007/s00264-003-0457-6

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

L Audigé 1,✉, B Hanson 1, M F Swiontkowski 2
PMCID: PMC3458474  PMID: 12734684

Abstract

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.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (224.6 KB).

References

  • 1.Adams J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:394. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200108000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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 209–222 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 3.BaumgaertnerClin Orthop 1998348879553538 [Google Scholar]
  • 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] 73:330–334 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 5.Butt Injury. 1995;26:615. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(95)00126-T. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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 3–19
  • 7.Egger BMJ. 1997;315:1533. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fornander Int J Orthop Trauma. 1994;4:118. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gehrchen Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;64:71. doi: 10.3109/17453679308994533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Goldhagen J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8:367. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199410000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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 481–498
  • 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] 80:618–630 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 13.Harrington Injury. 2002;33:23. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00106-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hoffmann Unfallchirurg. 1999;102:182. doi: 10.1007/s001130050391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.JohnstoneInjury 1993241638509183 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD (2000) Hip fractures—a practical guide to management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
  • 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 290–293
  • 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] 76:924–950 [PubMed]
  • 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] 74:345–351 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 20.Madsen J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:241. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199805000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.O'Brien Can J Surg. 1995;38:516. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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 475–480
  • 23.Park Int Orthop. 1998;22:157. doi: 10.1007/s002640050231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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, Oxford [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 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, Oxford [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 26.Walheim J Orthop Trauma. 1990;4:137. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199004020-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Orthopaedics are provided here courtesy of Springer-Verlag

RESOURCES