Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults

Martyn J. Parker, Helen Hg Handoll

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    224 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Background
    Two types of implants used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures are cephalocondylic intramedullary nails, which are inserted into the femoral canal proximally to distally across the fracture, and extramedullary implants (e.g. the sliding hip screw).

    Objectives
    To compare cephalocondylic intramedullary nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

    Search strategy
    We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (April 2010), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 13), and other sources.

    Selection criteria
    All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing cephalocondylic nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures.

    Data collection and analysis
    Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Wherever appropriate, results were pooled.

    Main results
    We included 43 trials containing predominantly older people with mainly trochanteric fractures. Twenty-two trials (3749 participants) compared the Gamma nail with the sliding hip screw (SHS). The Gamma nail was associated
    with increased risk of operative and later fracture of the femur and increased reoperation rate. There were no major differences between implants in wound infection, mortality or medical complications. Five trials (623 participants) compared the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) with the SHS. Fracture fixation complications were more common in the IMHS group. Results for post-operative complications, mortality and functional outcomes were similar in both groups.
    Three trials (394 participants) showed no difference in fracture fixation complications, reoperation, wound infection and length of hospital stay for proximal femoral nail (PFN) versus the SHS.
    None of the 10 trials (1491 participants) of other nail versus extramedullary implant comparisons for trochanteric fractures provided sufficient evidence to establish definite differences between the implants under test.
    Two trials (65 participants) found intramedullary nails were associated with fewer fracture fixation complications than fixed nail plates for unstable fractures at the level of the lesser trochanter. Two trials (124 participants) found a tendency to less fracture healing complications with the intramedullary nails compared with fixed nail plates for subtrochanteric fractures.

    Authors’ conclusions
    With its lower complication rate in comparison with intramedullary nails, and absence of functional outcome data to the contrary, the SHS appears superior for trochanteric fractures. Further studies are required to confirm whether more recently developed designs of intramedullary nail avoid the complications of previous nails. Intramedullary nails may have advantages over fixed angle plates for subtrochanteric and some unstable trochanteric fractures, but further studies are required.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-226
    JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2010

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this