Authors
D. Vermesan, R. Prejbeanu, D.V. Poenaru, H. Petrescu, E. Apostol, F. Inchingolo, G. Dipalma, A. Abbinante, M. Caprio, M.A. Potenza, R. Cagiano, G. Malcangi, A.D. Inchingolo, H. Haragus
Abstract
Background and Hypothesis
There is currently no consensus regarding superiority of the intramedullary fixation over the sliding hip screw. Regional variation remains high and not backed up by solid evidence. Given these premises we aimed to analyze weather implant preference can influence the postoperative survival. Secondary objectives were determining the trend for implant choice and confounding factors associated with intramedullary nails compared to sliding hip screws.
Patients and Methods
Retrospective data was obtained from patient charts with the main diagnosis of extracapsular/ trochanteric fractures, corresponding to ICD S72.1 codes. Between 2008-2012, 441 patients underwent osteosynthesis with a dynamic hip screw and 155 with intramedullary nail respectively. The living status was determined by comparing the patient identification number against the national population evidence records.
Results
The lifetable shows similar survival for both implants over the 5 year period. The yearly mortality was 19.4% for the dynamic hip screw and 21.8% for the intramedullary implant respectively, even though the later were used predominantly in older patients. This age difference is significant according to both parametric and non-parametric tests whereas duration of hospital stay are similar. We found a clear increase in the proportion of intramedullary implants, for a total of 11.2% over the 5 year period. There is no difference for the one year mortality and overall survival between sliding screw plates and intramedullary constructs.
Conclusion
A clear increase in the use of intramedullary implants for trochanteric fractures was observed. This is even more apparent for older ages, presumably due to an higher surgeon confidence with the biomechanical stability of the intramedullary constructs