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
. 2021 Jun 1;35(6):329-332.
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001989.

Does Size Matter for Cephalomedullary Nails in Geriatric Intertrochanteric Fractures?

Dustin B Rinehart  1 , David E O'Neill, Jennifer W Liu, Drew T Sanders
Affiliations

Does Size Matter for Cephalomedullary Nails in Geriatric Intertrochanteric Fractures?

Dustin B Rinehart et al. J Orthop Trauma. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the need for reoperation of geriatric intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with 10-mm cephalomedullary nails versus those treated with nails larger than 10 mm.

Design: Retrospective review at a single institution.

Setting: Level I trauma center.

Patients/participants: All patients age 60 and over treated with cephalomedullary fixation for an intertrochanteric femur fracture at a single institution.

Intervention: Cephalomedullary fixation with variable nail diameters.

Main outcome measurements: Reoperation rates of geriatric intertrochanteric fractures treated with a size 10-mm diameter cephalomedullary nail compared with patients treated with nails larger than 10 mm.

Results: There were no significant differences in reoperation rates when the 10-mm cohort was compared with an aggregate cohort of all nails larger than 10 mm (P = 0.99). This result was true for both all-cause reoperation and noninfectious reoperation. There was no difference between cohorts in regards to age, gender, or fracture pattern.

Conclusions: A 10-mm cephalomedullary nail can be used in lieu of a larger diameter fixation in patients age 60 and older with intertrochanteric femur fractures while still maintaining a comparable rate of reoperation.

Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Adeyemi A, Delhougne G. Incidence and economic burden of intertrochanteric fracture: a Medicare claims database analysis. JBJS Open Access. 2019;4:e0045.
    1. Rao JP, Banzon MT, Weiss AB, et al. Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures with anatomic reduction and compression hip screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;175:65–71.
    1. Chan KC, Gill GS. Cemented hemiarthroplasties for elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:206–215.
    1. Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P, et al. Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. JBJS. 1998;80:618–630.
    1. Sadowski C, Lübbeke A, Saudan M, et al. Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. JBJS. 2002;84:372–381.