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
. 2021 Jan 11;16(1):47.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-02193-5.

Cephalo-medullary nailing versus dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilisation plate for the treatment of unstable per-trochanteric hip fractures: a meta-analysis

Amr Selim  1   2 , Nikhil Ponugoti  3 , Ali Zain Naqvi  3 , Henry Magill  4
Affiliations
Review

Cephalo-medullary nailing versus dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilisation plate for the treatment of unstable per-trochanteric hip fractures: a meta-analysis

Amr Selim et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background: The use of cephalo-medullary nails (CMN) is a widely accepted management option for the treatment of unstable per-trochanteric hip fractures. A growing body of literature has reported good functional and radiological outcomes in patients managed with a dynamic hip screw supplemented with a trochanteric stabilisation plate (DHS w/ TSP). However, a robust meta-analysis does not exist in the current literature comparing the two fixation methods.

Purposes: Management of these kinds of injuries is very challenging in orthopaedic practice, yet no strong evidence is in place to delineate which implant gives the best results. This meta-analysis is the first to determine the efficacy of CMN versus DHS w/ TSP.

Methods: An up-to-date literature search was performed using a predetermined search strategy and eligibility criteria. All suitable literature was appraised for methodological quality using the Cochrane's collaboration tool. Hospital stay, operative time, intra-operative complication rate, mechanical failure rate, infection rates, revision rates and functional outcomes were all considered.

Results: A total of five studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of this analysis suggest that CMN is only associated with lower revision rates when compared to DHS w/ TSP; however, no significant difference was found in terms of hospital stay, operative time, blood transfusion, complications rate and functional outcome.

Conclusion: Both CMN and DHS w/TSP proved to be reliable in the management of unstable per-trochanteric fractures; however, more extensive datasets are required to draw robust conclusions.

Keywords: Cephalo-medullary nail; Dynamic hip screw; Hip fractures; Trochanteric stabilisation plate; Unstable trochanteric fractures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A figure displaying the risk of bias for the RCT included in the meta-analysis. Each colour represents the risk of bias in each of the domains (red = high risk, yellow = unclear and green = low risk)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A forest plot showing the comparison of a hospital stay (days), b operative time (minutes) and c blood transfusion (units) between the two fixation methods. CI, confidence interval; IV, independent variable; M-H Mantel-Haenszel; CMN, cephalo-medullary nail; DHS, dynamic hip screw; TSP, trochanteric stabilisation plate
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
A forest plot showing the comparison of a hospital stay (days), b mechanical failure rates and c infection rates between the two fixation methods. CI, confidence interval; IV, independent variable; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CMN, cephalo-medullary nail; DHS, dynamic hip screw; TSP, trochanteric stabilisation plate
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A forest plot showing the comparison of a revision rates, b “good” functional outcomes and c “poor” functional outcomes between the two fixation methods. CI, confidence interval; IV, independent variable; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CMN, cephalo-medullary nail; DHS, dynamic hip screw; TSP, trochanteric stabilisation plate
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Richmond J, Aharonoff GB, Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ. Mortality risk after hip fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17(1):53–56. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200301000-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berglund K, Löfman O, Larsson L, Toss G. Changes in hip fracture epidemiology: redistribution between ages, genders and fracture types. Osteoporos Int. 2002;13(1):18–25. doi: 10.1007/s198-002-8333-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chehade MJ, Carbone T, Awward D, et al. Influence of fracture stability on early patient mortality and reoperation after pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(12):538–543. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000359. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lu Y, Uppal HS. Hip fractures: relevant anatomy, classification, and biomechanics of fracture and fixation. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2019;10:215145931985913. doi: 10.1177/2151459319859139. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Selim AAHA, Beder FK, Algeaidy IT, Farhat AS, Diab NM, Barakat AS. Management of unstable pertrochanteric fractures, evaluation of forgotten treatment options. SICOT J. 2020;6:21. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2020020. - DOI - PMC - PubMed