This study aimed to compare mortality in trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with an intramedullary nail (IMN) or sliding hip screw (SHS). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with secondary endpoints at 0 to 1, 2 to 7, 8 to 30, 90, and 365 days. We analyzed data from 26,393 patients with trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with IMNs (n = 9,095) or SHSs (n = 17,298) in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (January 2008 to December 2020). Exclusions were made for patients aged < 60 years, pathological fractures, pre-2008 operations, contralateral hip fractures, fractures other than trochanteric A1/A2, and treatments other than IMNs or SHSs. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses adjusted for type of fracture, age, sex, cognitive impairment, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and time period were conducted, along with calculations for number needed to harm (NNH).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate if there are differences in outcome between sliding hip screws (SHSs) and intramedullary nails (IMNs) with regard to fracture stability. We assessed data from 17,341 patients with trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures treated with SHS or IMN in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from 2013 to 2019. Primary outcome measures were reoperations for stable fractures (AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type A1) and unstable fractures (AO/OTA type A2, A3, and subtrochanteric fractures). Secondary outcome measures were reoperations for A2, A3, and subtrochanteric fractures individually, one-year mortality, quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension three-level index score), pain (visual analogue scale (VAS)), and satisfaction (VAS) for stable and unstable fractures. Hazard rate ratios (HRRs) for reoperation were calculated using Cox regression analysis with adjustments for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score.Aims
Methods
Systematic reviews disagree, but some recent studies have shown better function and less pain after operation with bipolar hemiarthroplasty compared to fixation by two screws in elderly patients operated for displaced femoral neck fractures. There is still uncertainty regarding the mortality associated with both procedures. To investigate mortality and the risk factors for death among patients with displaced femoral neck fractures within the first three years after surgery, comparing operation with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA) and internal fixation (IF) by two screws.Background
Aim of the study
A well conducted randomised study found similar functional results for patients with displaced femoral neck fracture comparing operation with a modern uncemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty with a cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty. The mortality associated with the two procedures has not been sufficiently investigated. To investigate the mortality and the risk factors for death among patients with displaced femoral neck fractures the first year after surgery, comparing operation with modern uncemented and cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA).Background
Aim of study
Undisplaced femoral neck fractures have been given little attention in the literature. By using data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, this study investigates risk for reoperation and the clinical results, including pain, patient satisfaction, and quality of life, after undisplaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. Data on 4,468 patients over 70 years of age with undisplaced femoral neck fractures operated with internal fixation (IF) were compared to 10,289 patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with IF (n = 3,389) or bipolar hemiarthroplasty (n = 6,900). The evaluation was based on number of reported reoperations and patients' assessment (visual analogue scales concerning pain (0–100) and patient satisfaction (0–100), and quality of life (EQ-5D)) four and twelve months postoperatively. The patients were followed for 0–1 year. The Cox multiple regression model was used to construct adjusted survival curves. Subanalyses were performed on undisplaced femoral neck fractures to investigate different risk factors for reoperation.Introduction
Material and Methods
The treatment of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures remains controversial, and new implants are constantly being developed trying to improve outcome and minimize the number of complications in these fractures. In Norway the Sliding Hip Screw(SHS), with or without a Trochanteric Stabilizing Plate (TSP), is still the most commonly used implant, but worldwide nailing of these fractures is increasing. This trend, however, has not been supported by documentation of better clinical results compared to the SHS in well designed studies. Therefore, in the present study we compared the recently launched Trigen Intertan nail (Smith and Nephew) with the SHS in the treatment of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. In a prospective, randomized multicenter study with 697 patients, we compared the Trigen Intertan nail with the SHS regarding postoperative pain, functional mobility, complications, and reoperation rates. Patients older than 60 years with trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures were included in 5 hospitals. At day 5, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively, pain was measured using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and the Timed Up and Go-test (TUG-test) was performed to evaluate functional mobility. Complications and reoperations were recorded at discharge, and after 3 and 12 months.Introduction
Patients and Methods
Using data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register,
8639 cemented and 2477 uncemented primary hemiarthroplasties for
displaced fractures of the femoral neck in patients aged > 70 years
were included in a prospective observational study. A total of 218
re-operations were performed after cemented and 128 after uncemented
procedures. Survival of the hemiarthroplasties was calculated using
the Kaplan-Meier method and hazard rate ratios (HRR) for revision
were calculated using Cox regression analyses. At five years the
implant survival was 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97 to 97)
for cemented and 91% (95% CI 87 to 94) for uncemented hemiarthroplasties.
Uncemented hemiarthroplasties had a 2.1 times increased risk of
revision compared with cemented prostheses (95% confidence interval
1.7 to 2.6, p < 0.001). The increased risk was mainly caused
by revisions for peri-prosthetic fracture (HRR = 17), aseptic loosening
(HRR = 17), haematoma formation (HRR = 5.3), superficial infection
(HRR = 4.6) and dislocation (HRR = 1.8). More intra-operative complications,
including intra-operative death, were reported for the cemented
hemiarthroplasties. However, in a time-dependent analysis, the HRR
for re-operation in both groups increased as follow-up increased. This study showed that the risk for revision was higher for uncemented
than for cemented hemiarthroplasties.