Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2021 Mar 5;100(9):e24166. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024166

Comparison of clinical outcomes with hip replacement versus PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly

A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA)

Junming Chen a, Chen Yue b, Peilin He a, Zeling Huang a, Li Li a, Xue Zhang b, Yanan Fan b, Youwen Liu b,∗
Editor: Arjun Ballal
PMCID: PMC7939162  PMID: 33655910

Abstract

Background:

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of HR and PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly.

Methods:

We carried out this review according to the principle of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies (RCSs), and case-control studies involving HR and PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly from 2000 to 2020 were compared by searching Web of Science, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The quality of the included cohort study (CS) lines was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The quality of the included RCT lines was evaluated using Jadad. Forest plots were drawn by RevMan5.4 software based on the results and the data were analyzed.

Results:

After screening, a total of 9 articles were included, of which one was a clinical RCT and eight were RCSs with 1374 patients. The operative time of the PFNA group was shorter [WMD = 15.20; 95% CI (13.17, 17.23), P < .05] and the intraoperative blood loss was less [WMD = 178.81; 95% CI (97.24, 260.38), P < .05] than the HR group, while the first weight-bearing time of the HR group was shorter [WMD = −7.70; 95% CI (−10.54, −4.86), P < .05] than the PFNA group. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay, HHS, postoperative orthopedic complications, and postoperative medical complications between the 2 groups.

Conclusion:

With the development of HR technology and minimally invasive technology, the trauma caused by surgery is decreasing. Under the premise of improving perioperative management, such as optimizing the preoperative preparation and postoperative management, shortening the operative time, reducing intraoperative blood loss, and actively managing co-existing diseases, HR has more advantages than PFNA in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures.

Keywords: hip replacement, HR, intertrochanteric fractures, meta-analysis, PFNA, proximal femoral nail antirotation

1. Introduction

An intertrochanteric fracture is a common type of hip fracture and is more common in the middle-aged and elderly.[1] With the aging of the global population, the incidence of intertrochanteric fractures is also on the rise.[2] Conservative treatment of intertrochanteric fractures requires patients to stay in bed for a long time, and many complications may occur, such as pneumonia, urethral infections, deep venous thromboses, and pressure sores. Indeed, it has been shown that the outcomes of conservative treatment are poor and the mortality rate is high.[3,4] Currently, surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures is preferred.[5,6] The main surgical methods include hip replacement (HR) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Because these surgical methods each have advantages and disadvantages, the choice between the 2 methods is controversial.[7–9] More importantly, a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of HR and PFNA has not been conducted. Therefore, this study will use the meta-analysis method to compare the corresponding indicators of HR and PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly, analyze these indicators to evaluate the clinical safety and effectiveness, and provide a new reference for clinical treatment strategies.

2. Methods

2.1. Search strategy

According to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) principle of meta-analysis,[10–12] we performed a literature search on Web of Science, Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2000 to 2020 using the following key words: hip arthroplasty; hip replacement; total hip arthroplasty; total hip replacement; THA; HR; proximal femoral nail antirotation; PFNA; intertrochanteric fracture; and trochanteric femoral fracture. Studies focusing on HR and PFNA in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fracture were also included. The search terms were connected with “OR” or “AND”.

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were determined according to the PICOS principle, as follows:

  • 1.

    design type clinical randomized controlled trial (RCT), prospective cohort study, retrospective cohort study (RCS), or case-control study;

  • 2.

    age ≥ 60 years;

  • 3.

    study subjects diagnosed with an intertrochanteric fracture; and

  • 4.

    comparison of HR and PFNA.

The exclusion criteria were as follows:

  • 1.

    the subjects had non-intertrochanteric fractures (including traumatic and pathological fractures);

  • 2.

    intervention combined with a variety of treatment methods;

  • 3.

    incomplete data or data that could not be obtained; and

  • 4.

    repeated publication of the study.[13]

2.3. Literature screening and data extraction

The2 authors independently retrieved the titles and abstracts of articles, merged the literature retrieval results of the different databases, established an information database, and retained all eligible articles. The data of the 2 authors were extracted from the tables included in the trials and all the differences were unified through discussion.[14–16] The following data were extracted from the included trials: first author; publication date; research topic; intervention; follow-up time; and results. The results included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, first weight-bearing time, postoperative Harris hip score (HHS), postoperative orthopedic complications, and postoperative medical complications. The design type and quality evaluation information of the studies were extracted.

2.4. Quality assessment

Two investigators independently employed the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) to assess the quality of the included cohort studies (CSs) by the method of selecting patients, the comparability of the study groups, and the study results. Based on these parameters, the total score was 9, with each study scoring a maximum of 1 on selection and results, 2 on comparability items, and greater than 6 on high-quality literature. The Jadad score was used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs, including random sequence, allocation concealment, blind method, lost to follow-up and withdrawal, in which 0 to 3 represents low-quality studies and 4 to 7 represents high-quality articles. When the opinions could not be unified, a third party participated in the evaluation.[17]

2.5. Outcome indicators

The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, first weight-bearing time, postoperative HHS, postoperative orthopedic complications, and postoperative medical complications were recorded. The main outcome indicators were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and the first weight-bearing time. The secondary outcome indicators were postoperative HHS, length of hospital stay, postoperative orthopedic complications, and postoperative medical complications.[18]

2.6. Evidence quality and recommendation level

According to the results of the system evaluation, the GRADE system recommendation method was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and recommendation grade. The quality grade was divided into the following 4 grades: very low; low; medium; and high, and edited and analyzed by GRADEpro3.6.1 software.

2.7. Statistical analysis

The Cochrane Collaboration Network Revman5.4 software (https://www.cochrane.org/) was used for our meta-analysis. Before the analysis of each study, a χ2 test was used to determine whether there was heterogeneity between studies. When no heterogeneity existed between studies (P > .1, I2 < 50%), a fixed effect model was used. When there was heterogeneity between studies (P < .1, I2 > 50%), the causes of heterogeneity were analyzed first, then sensitivity analysis was carried out. If there was clinical heterogeneity, a subgroup analysis was needed, and if there was still heterogeneity, a random effect model or descriptive assessment was used. The counting data were analyzed by RR or OR, continuous variable data by MD analysis, and the 95% CI was calculated. Forest plots were used to display the results of the meta-analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Literature retrieval results

A total of 818 articles were retrieved. The abstracts were read carefully, 782 articles were excluded, and 36 full-text articles were downloaded. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria during the second screening, thus 9 articles involving 1374 patients were included (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Search results and selection procedure.

3.2. Study quality evaluation

The included studies included 1 RCT and eight CSs. The results of the NOS showed that eight and 7 studies met the criteria for patient selection and comparability between groups, respectively; however, none of the studies had complete outcome reporting. The NOS scores of 8 studies were ≥6. The Jadad score of 1 study was ≥4, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Study Year Country Outcome indicators Age Sample size HR PFNA Adverse event Study type NOS/Jadad
Esen et al [19] 2017 Turkey 1/6/7 ≥60 92 58 34 No CS 7
Görmeli et al [20] 2015 Turkey 1/2/5 >65 143 75 68 No CS 7
Li et al [21] 2019 China 1/2/5/6/7 ≥60 97 46 51 No CS 8
Luo et al [22] 2017 America 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 ≥70 123 52 71 No CS 8
Tang et al [23] 2012 Netherlands 5/6/7 ≥65 303 156 134 No CS 7
Xie et al [24] 2019 Belgium 1/2/3/4/5/6 ≥60 367 172 195 No CS 7
Suh et al [25] 2015 South Korea 5 ≥70 100 50 50 No CS 6
Zhou et al [26] 2019 England 1/2/3/5/6/7 ≥75 108 47 61 No CS 7
Özkayin et al[27] 2015 Netherlands 1/5/6/7 ≥75 54 33 21 No RCT 4
Open in a new tab

3.3. Meta-analysis results

3.3.1. Operative time

Seven articles were included in the study to compare the mean operative time between the HR and PFNA groups. Of the 984 patients, 483 were in the HR group and 501 were in the PFNA group. The results of the heterogeneity analysis showed (P = .12, I2 = 99%) that there was heterogeneity among the studies (Fig. 2A), which was due to some of the studies (Xie2019, Zhou2019, Özkayin2015). After removing studies, the meta-analysis was repeated and the results of the heterogeneity analysis showed were an indication for the fixed effect model analysis method (P < .0001, I2 = 0%), and the data analysis [WMD = 15.20; 95% CI (13.17, 17.23), P < .0001] is shown in Figure 2B (P < .05). The average operative time in the PFNA group was shorter than the HR group.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

A. A forest plot comparing the HR and PFNA operative times. B. A forest plot comparing the HR and PFNA operative times after excluding studies caused heterogeneity.

3.3.2. Intraoperative blood loss

Six articles were included to compare the mean intraoperative blood loss between the HR and PFNA groups, involving 1040 patients (488 patients in the HR group and 552 patients in the PFNA group). The results of the heterogeneity analysis showed that there was significant heterogeneity among the studies (P < .0001, I2 = 100%); the heterogeneity could not be eliminated after sensitivity and subgroup analyses, thus the random effect model analysis method was used. As shown in Figure 3 (P < .05) data analysis revealed the following: [WMD = 178.81; 95% CI (97.24, 260.38), P < .0001]. The average intraoperative blood loss in the PFNA group was less than the HR group.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

A forest plot for comparing HR and PFNA intraoperative blood loss.

3.3.3. Length of hospital stay

Three articles were included to compare the average length of hospital stay between the HR and PFNA groups. Of 594 patients, 271 were in the HR group and 323 were in the PFNA group. The results of the heterogeneity analysis showed that heterogeneity existed among studies (P < .00001, I2 = 94%) that could not be eliminated after sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The random effect model analysis method was used. Data analysis showed the following, as shown in Figure 4 (P > .05): [WMD = −0.74; 95% CI (−3.18, 1.70), P = .55]. There was no significant difference in the average length of hospital stay between the PFNA and HR groups.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

A forest plot comparing HR and PFNA length of hospital stay.

3.3.4. First weight-bearing time

A total of 3 articles were included, and the first weight-bearing time of the HR and PFNA groups was determined. Of the 692 patients, 320 were in the HR group and 372 were in the PFNA group. The results of the heterogeneity analysis showed that heterogeneity existed among the studies (P < .00001, I2 = 99%) that could not be eliminated after sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The random effect model analysis method was used. The results of data analysis showed the following, as shown in Figure 5 (P < .05): [WMD = −7.70; 95% CI (−10.54, −4.86), P < .00001]. The first weight-bearing time of the HR group was shorter than the PFNA group.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

A forest plot comparing HR and PFNA time to first weight-beariing.

3.3.5. Postoperative HHS

Nine articles were included to analyze HHS after surgery in the HR and PFNA groups. Of the 1270 patients, 618 were in the HR group and 652 were in the PFNA group. The results of the heterogeneity analysis showed that there was heterogeneity among studies (P < .00001, I2 = 98%), but the heterogeneity could not be eliminated after sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Thus, the random effect model analysis method was selected. Data analysis showed the following, as shown in Figure 6: [WMD = −0.83; 95% CI (−6.42, 4.77), P = .77]. There was no significant difference in hip function between the HR and PFNA groups after surgery.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

A forest plot comparing HR and PFNA postoperative HHS.

3.3.6. Postoperative orthopedic complications

A total of 7 studies recorded postoperative orthopedic complications in the HR and PFNA groups, and included 1131 patients, with 564 in the HR group and 567 in the PFNA group. The results of the heterogeneity analysis showed that the studies were homogeneous (P = .58, I2 = 0%), thus the fixed effect model analysis method was used. Data analysis showed the following, as shown in Figure 7: [OR = 0.68; 95% CI (0.44, 1.06), P = .09], was not significant. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative orthopedic complications between the HR and PFNA groups.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

A forest plot comparing HR and PFNA postoperative orthopedic complications.

3.3.7. Postoperative medical complications

A total of 5 studies recorded the postoperative medical complications in the HR and PFNA groups. Of the 672 patients, 334 were in the HR group and 338 were in the PFNA group. The results of the heterogeneity analysis showed that there was heterogeneity among the studies (P = .08, I2 = 56%) and that the heterogeneity could not be eliminated after sensitivity and subgroup analyses, so the random effect model analysis method was selected. Data analysis showed the following, as shown in Figure 8: [OR = 1.61; 95% CI (0.54, 4.84), P = .39]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of post-operative medical complications between the HR and PFNA groups.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

A forest plot comparing HR and PFNA postoperative medical complications.

3.4. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

Due to the limited number of articles (n = 9), neither a funnel plot nor Egger test was generated to detect potential publication bias; no publication bias was noted.

3.5. Results of the GRADE evaluation and recommended intensity of indicators

GRADEpro3.6.1 software was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for 3 key outcome indicators and 4 secondary outcome indicators. Although the results of the bias risk assessment section showed that the quality of the trial design was reasonable. The summary of the results showed that the overall level of evidence available in our meta-analysis was medium or low, which may be due to inconsistencies, especially with respect to the limited number of events (Table 2).

Table 2.

Outcome indicator of the GRADE evidence quality evaluation results.

Continuous variable compared to placebo for intertrochanteric fractureBibliography: Hip replacement vs proximal femoral nail antirotation for intertrochanteric fracture. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Year], Issue [Issue].
Certainty assessment Summary of findings
Study event rates (%) Anticipated absolute effects
Participants (studies) Follow up Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias vJVcrcill certainty of evidence With placebo With Continuous variable Relative effect (95% CI) Risk with placebo Risk difference with Continuous variable
Operation time
 984 (7 observational studies) not serious not serious not serious not serious none LOW 501 483 – The mean operation time was 0 MD 12.46 higher (3.45 lower to 28.37 higher)
Intraoperative bleeding volume
 1040 (6 observational studies) not serious not serious not serious not serious none LOW 552 488 – The mean intraoperative bleeding volume was 0 MD 178.81 higher (97.24 higher to 260.38 higher)
Hospitalization time
 598 (3 observational studies) not serious serious serious serious none VERY LOW 327 271 – The mean hospitalization time was 0 MD 0.74 lower (3.18 lower to 1.7 higher)
First weight-bearing time
 692 (3 observational studies) not serious not serious not serious not serious none LOW 372 320 – The mean first weight bearing time was 0 MD 7.7 lower (10.54 lower to 4.86 lower)
Postoperative Harris hip score
 1270 (9. observational studies) not serious serious serious serious none VERY LOW 652 618 – The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 0 MD 7.15 higher (6.53 higher to 7.78 higher)
Binary variable compared to placebo for intertrochanteric fractureBibliography: Hip replacement vs proximal femoral nail anti rotation for intertrochanteric fracture. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Year], Issue [Issue].
Certainty assessment Summary of findings
Study event rates (%) Anticipated absolute effects
Participants (studies) Follow up Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias Overall certainty of evidence With placebo With Binary variable Relative effect (95% CI) Risk with placebo Risk difference with Binary variable
Postoperative orthopedic complications
 733 (5 observational studies) serious serious serious serious none VERY LOW 40/372 (10.8%) 21/361 (5.8%) OR 0.52 (0.30 to 0.91) 108 per 1,000 49 fewer per 1000 (from 73 fewer to 9 fewer)
Postoperative medical complications
 672 (5 observational studies) serious serious serious serious none VERY LOW 19/338 (5.6%) 26/334 (7.8%) OR 1.61 (0.54 to 4.84) 56 per 1,000 31 more per 1000 (from 25 fewer to 168 more)
Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

Intertrochanteric fractures are more common in the middle-aged and elderly. Because osteoporosis is common in the elderly, intertrochanteric fractures are more likely to occur in cases involving external force collisions and violence.[28] The choice of surgical treatment enables patients to carry out weight-bearing exercise as soon as possible, speed up functional recovery of the lower limbs, avoid the occurrence of a hip varus deformity after fracture, improve the quality of life, and increase survival of postoperative patients.[29] At present, HR technology is more mature, the prosthesis is firm and stable, and postoperative hip joint function recovers earlier.[30–31] Although HR has obvious advantages, the operative time of HR is longer, the amount of intraoperative blood loss is more, and the degree of tissue injury is also greater. For some elderly patients, due to their weak physical level, they have a low tolerance for surgery, which will be accompanied by a series of risk factors. At the same time, the service life of the prosthesis is limited, so there is still controversy with respect to HR.[22] PFNA was developed based on the improvement of internal fixation technology. The operative time is short, the femoral head and neck can be preserved, and the fixation effect is good. The characteristics of PFNA include the following: avoid the instability of the proximal femur after internal fixation; conducive to fracture healing; and reduce the incidence of hip varus deformity.[32] Zhou et al[26] reported that hip joint function of patients is effectively improved after surgical treatment, which significantly reduces the incidence of post-operative complications. Based on the above advantages, PFNA is suitable for elderly patients with partial intertrochanteric fractures because this treatment requires low surgical tolerance.[33] The literature shows that there is a serious risk of fixation failure and loosening in the clinic. The PFNA failure rate of patients with severe osteoporosis is higher, and the mortality rate 1 year postoperative can reach 21.4%, which may be related to the longer time in bed postoperatively and delay in weight-bearing.[34]

HR and PFNA are the 2 main surgical methods for the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Because there are significant differences in the efficacy and prognosis of the 2 surgical methods for different patients, the indications for elderly patients with intertrochanteric fracture should be combined with the clinical characteristics on the premise of strengthening perioperative treatment, considering the patients physical condition, fracture, and severity of the injury. Strengthening perioperative management includes preoperative preparation and postoperative treatment, improving surgical skills, reducing intraoperative blood loss, actively treating basic diseases, correcting anemia, and treating complications.

A total of 9 articles were included in this meta-analysis, and the total number of cases was relatively small. The quality of some literature research was not high, and the literature evaluation criteria were not unified. These factors will increase the difficulty of arriving at a meaningful conclusion, so it is necessary to establish and select unified measurement standards and functional evaluation standards in clinical research.

5. Conclusion

The appropriate treatment scheme should be chosen for elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures. HR promoted the functional recovery of the hip joint, shortened the time of bed rest, and enabled patients to carry out weight-bearing exercise in the early stage. With the development of HR and minimally invasive technology, the trauma caused by surgery was getting smaller and smaller. Under the premise of strengthening perioperative management, HR had more advantages in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. For patients with severe osteoporosis and other diseases, it was necessary to make adequate preoperative preparation and postoperative treatment, multidisciplinary consultation, and active treatment of basic diseases, thus giving patients the most scientific diagnosis and treatment plan and reducing the occurrence of postoperative complications. Only in this way can patients achieve satisfactory results and recover their health as soon as possible.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Junming Chen, Liu Youwen.

Data curation: Chen Yue, Zeling Huang, Li Li, Xue Zhang, Yanan Fan.

Formal analysis: Chen Yue, Peilin He.

Funding acquisition: Peilin He.

Methodology: Chen Yue.

Project administration: Chen Yue.

Supervision: Liu Youwen.

Writing – original draft: Junming Chen, Peilin He.

Writing – review & editing: Chen Yue, Peilin He, Zeling Huang, Li Li, Xue Zhang, Yanan Fan, Liu Youwen.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, CS = cohort study, HHS = Harris hip score, HR = hip replacement, OR = odds ratio, PFNA = proximal femoral nail antirotation, PRISMA = preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCS = retrospective cohort study, RCT = randomized controlled trial.

How to cite this article: Chen J, Yue C, He P, Huang Z, Li L, Zhang X, Fan Y, Liu Y. Comparison of clinical outcomes with hip replacement versus PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Medicine. 2021;100:9(e24166).

JC, CY, PH, and ZH contributed equally to this work.

This meta-analysis is just a reorganization and analysis of all the data related to clinical trials. No medical ethics issues were involved.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

1 = operative time, 2 = intraoperative blood loss, 3 = hospitalization time, 4 = First weight-bearing time, 5 = Postoperative Harris hip score, 6 = Postoperative orthopedic complications, 7 = Postoperative medical complications, CS = cohort study, HR = hip replacement, PFNA = proximal femoral nail antirotation, RCT = randomized controlled trial.

References

  • [1].Tucker A, Donnelly KJ, Rowan C, et al. Is the best plate a nail? A review of 3230 unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Orthop Trauma 2018;32:53–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Hiragami K, Ishii J. Embedding the lateral end of the lag screw within the lateral wall in the repair of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric femur fracture. J Int Med Res 2018;46:1103–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Shin KH, Hong SH, Han SB. Posterior fully threaded positioning screw prevents femoral neck collapse in Garden I or II femoral neck fractures. Injury 2020;51:1031–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Yoo JI, Ha YC, Lim JY, et al. Early rehabilitation in elderly after arthroplasty versus internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Korean Med Sci 2017;32:858–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Sik CW, Hoon AJ, Joon-Hyuk K, et al. Cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Clin Orthop Surg 2010;2:221–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Choi HJ, Kim E, Shin YJ, et al. The timing of surgery and mortality in elderly hip fractures: a retrospective, multicenteric cohort study. Indian J Orthop 2014;48:599–604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Park-Wyllie LY, Mamdani MM, Juurlink DN, et al. Bisphosphonate use and risk of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures in older women. JAMA 2011;305:783–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Min BW, Lee KJ, Oh JK, et al. The treatment strategies for failed fixation of intertrochanteric fractures. Injury 2019;50:1339–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Parker MJ, Cawley S. Sliding hip screw versus the Targon PFT nail for trochanteric hip fractures: a randomised trial of 400 patients. Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1210–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Ekhtiari S, Gormley J, Axelrod Daniel E, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020;102:1638–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Yue C, Kang P, Pei F. Comparison of direct anterior and lateral approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e2126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Yue C, Wei R, Liu Y. Perioperative systemic steroid for rapid recovery in total knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Orthop Surg Res 2017;12:100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Cui S, Wang D, Wang X, et al. The choice of screw internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2020;15:433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Yue C, Zhang X, Zhu Y, et al. Systematic review of three Electrical stimulation techniques for rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:2330–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Albanese KM, Deshmane P, Patil N, et al. Dual-mobility articulations in femoral neck fractures: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020;doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00407. [Online ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Bäcker HC, Vosseller JT, Deml MC, et al. Spinopelvic dissociation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020;doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00293. [Online ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Zhang C, Fang X, Huang Z, et al. Addition of bone marrow stem cells therapy achieves better clinical outcomes and lower rates of disease progression compared with core decompression alone for early stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020;28:973–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Ma JX, Kuang MJ, Fan ZR, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes with InterTan vs Gamma nail or PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2017;7:15962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Esen E, Dur H, Ataoglu MB, et al. Evaluation of proximal femoral nail-antirotation and cemented, bipolar hemiarthroplasty with calcar replacement in treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in terms of mortality and morbidity ratios. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2017;28:35–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Görmeli G, Korkmaz MF, Görmeli CA, et al. Comparison of femur intertrochanteric fracture fixation with hemiarthroplasty and proximal femoral nail systems. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2015;21:503–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Li M, Hu J, Li Z, et al. Efficacy comparison of different methods to treat femoral intertrochanteric fracture in aged patients. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2017;31:653–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Luo X, He S, Zeng D, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures: case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2017;38:37–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Tang P, Hu F, Shen J, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus hemiarthroplasty: a study for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Injury 2012;43:876–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Xie Y, Dong Q, Xie Z. Proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) and hemi-arthroplasty in the treatment of elderly intertrochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Belg 2019;85:199–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Suh YS, Nho JH, Kim SM, et al. Clinical and radiologic outcomes among bipolar hemiarthroplasty, compression hip screw and proximal femur nail antirotation in treating comminuted intertrochanteric fractures. Hip Pelvis 2015;27:30–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Zhou S, Liu J, Zhen P, et al. Proximal femoral nail anti-rotation versus cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty for unstable femoral intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Özkayin N, Okcu G, Aktuglu K. Intertrochanteric femur fractures in the elderly treated with either proximal femur nailing or hemiarthroplasty: a prospective randomised clinical study. Injury 2015;46: Suppl 2: S3–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Dung TT, Hieu ND, Son LM, et al. Primary cementless bipolar long stem hemiarthroplasty for unstable osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly patients. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019;7:4342–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Wu Kailun, Xu Yingjie, Zhang Lei, et al. Which implant is better for beginners to learn to treat geriatric intertrochanteric femur fractures: a randomised controlled trial of surgeons, metalwork, and patients. J Orthop Translat 2020;21:18–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Lee YK, Ha YC, Chang BK, et al. Cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty using a hydroxyapatite-coated long stem for osteoorotic unstable interochanteric fractures. Arthrpolasty 2011;26:626–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Chai W, Kong X, Yang M, et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty for arthrodesed hips. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2020;16:357–68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Kulachote N, Sa-Ngasoongsong P, Sirisreetreerux N, et al. Predicting factors for return to prefracture ambulatory level in high surgical risk elderly patients sustained intertrochanteric fracture and treated with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) with and without cement augmentation. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2020;11:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Smith AM, Mardones RM, Sperling JW, et al. Early complications of operatively treated proximal humeral fractures. Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:14–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Schuetze K, Ehinger S, Eickhoff A, et al. Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation: is it safe? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020;doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03531-2. [Online ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES