TRIGEN INTERTAN Intramedullary Nail Versus Sliding Hip Screw

Background: Both intramedullary nails and sliding hip screws are used with good results in the treatment of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. The aim of our study was to assess whether use of the TRIGEN INTERTAN nail, as compared with a sliding hip screw, resulted in less postoperative pain, improved functional mobility, and reduced surgical complication rates for patients with an intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture. Methods: In a prospective, randomized multicenter study, 684 elderly patients were treated with the INTERTAN nail or with a sliding hip screw with or without a trochanteric stabilizing plate. The patients were assessed during their hospital stay and at three and twelve months postoperatively. A visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score was recorded at all time points, and functional mobility was assessed with use of the timed Up & Go test. The Harris hip score (HHS) was used to assess hip function more specifically. Quality of life was measured with the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Radiographic findings as well as intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. Results: Patients treated with an INTERTAN nail had slightly less pain at the time of early postoperative mobilization (VAS score, 48 versus 52; p = 0.042), although this did not influence the length of the hospital stay and there was no difference at three or twelve months. Regardless of the fracture and implant type, functional mobility, hip function, patient satisfaction, and quality-of-life assessments were comparable between the groups at three and twelve months. The numbers of patients with surgical complications were similar for the two groups (twenty-nine in the sliding-hip-screw group and thirty-two in the INTERTAN group, p = 0.67). Conclusions: INTERTAN nails and sliding hip screws are similar in terms of pain, function, and reoperation rates twelve months after treatment of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures

Posterior approach compared to direct lateral approach resulted in better patient-reported outcome after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture: 20,908 patients from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register

Background and purpose — Hemiarthroplasty (HA) is the most common treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in many countries. In Norway, there has been a tradition of using the direct lateral surgical approach, but worldwide a posterior approach is more often used. Based on data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, we compared the results of HA operated through the posterior and direct lateral approaches regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and reoperation rate. Patients and methods — HAs due to femoral neck fracture in patients aged 60 years and older were included from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (2005–2014). 18,918 procedures were reported with direct lateral approach and 1,990 with posterior approach. PROM data (satisfaction, pain, quality of life (EQ-5D), and walking ability) were reported 4, 12, and 36 months postoperatively. The Cox regression model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) of reoperation. Results — There were statistically significant differences in PROM data with less pain, better satisfaction, and better quality of life after surgery using the posterior approach than using the direct lateral approach. The risk of reoperation was similar between the approaches. Interpretation — Hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture performed through a posterior approach rather than a direct lateral approach results in less pain, with better patient satisfaction and better quality of life. The risk of reoperation was similar with both approaches