Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Jul;96(27):e7446.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007446.

Comparison of intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures in the elderly: A meta-analysis

Boyuan Nie  1 , Dou Wu, Zhaohui Yang, Qiang Liu
Affiliations
Review

Comparison of intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures in the elderly: A meta-analysis

Boyuan Nie et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jul.

Abstract

Background: More and more studies conduct to compare intramedullary fixation (IMF) with arthroplasty in treating intertrochanteric hip fractures, but it remains controversy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to find out whether IMF or arthroplasty was more appropriate for treating intertrochanteric hip fractures in elderly patients.

Methods: Relevant studies were searched in the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1980 to September 2016 with English language restriction. Surgical information and postoperative outcomes were analyzed using RevMan 5.3 version.

Results: A total of 1239 patients from 11 studies which satisfied the eligibility criteria were included. Compared with IMF, the use of arthroplasty reduced implant-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 2.05, P = .02) and reoperation rate (OR: 7.06, P < .001), and had similar length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.41, P = .63). However, IMF reduced blood loss (WMD: -375.01, P = .001) and transfusion requirement (OR: 0.07, P < .001), shorter operation time (WMD: -18.92, P = .010), higher Harris hip score (WMD: 4.19, P < .001), and lower rate of 1-year mortality (OR: 0.67, P = .02) compared with arthroplasty.

Conclusion: The main treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures is internal fixation using IMF. In the absence of concrete evidence, arthroplasty should be undertaken with caution in carefully selected patient and surgeon should be aware of the increased complexity of doing the arthroplasty in these elderly patients. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to provide robust evidence and evaluate the treatment options.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias assessment summary of randomized controlled trials.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot diagram of operation time compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot diagram of blood loss compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot diagram of transfusion compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot diagram of hospital stay compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot diagram of Harris hip score of the latest follow-up compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot diagram of mortality within 1-year compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot diagram of implant-related complications compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Forest plot diagram of reoperation compared between intramedullary fixation and arthroplasty.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 2006;37:691–7. - PubMed
    1. Teague DC, Ertl WJ, Hickerson L, et al. What's new in orthopaedic trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98:1142–9. - PubMed
    1. Huang X, Leung F, Xiang Z, et al. Proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw fixation for trochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:805805. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonnaire F, Lein T, Bula P. [Trochanteric femoral fractures: anatomy, biomechanics and choice of implants]. Unfallchirurg 2011;114:491–500. - PubMed
    1. Sambandam SN, Chandrasekharan J, Mounasamy V, et al. Intertrochanteric fractures: a review of fixation methods. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2016;26:339–53. - PubMed