• Marc Saudan, Anne Lübbeke, Christophe Sadowski, Nicolas Riand, Richard Stern, and Pierre Hoffmeyer.
• Clinique d'Orthopédie et de Chirurgie de l'Appareil Moteur, Hôpital Cantonal Universitaire, Geneva, Switzerland.
• J Orthop Trauma. 2002 Jul 1; 16 (6): 386-93.

ObjectivesTo compare the results between a sliding compression hip screw and an intramedullary nail in the treatment of pertrochanteric fractures.DesignProspective computer-generated randomization of 206 patients into two study groups: those treated by sliding compression hip screw (Group 1; n = 106) and those treated by intramedullary nailing (Group 2; n = 100).SettingUniversity Level I trauma center.PatientsAll patients over the age of fifty-five years presenting with fractures of the trochanteric region caused by a low-energy injury, classified as AO/OTA Type 31-A1 and A2.InterventionTreatment with a sliding compression hip screw (Dynamic Hip Screw; Synthes-Stratec, Oberdorf, Switzerland) or an intramedullary nail (Proximal Femoral Nail; Synthes-Stratec, Oberdorf, Switzerland).Main Outcome MeasurementsIntraoperative: operative and fluoroscopy times, the difficulty of the operation, intraoperative complications, and blood loss. Radiologic: fracture healing and failure of fixation. Clinical: pain, social functioning score, and mobility score.ResultsThe minimum follow-up was one year. We did not find any statistically significant difference, intraoperatively, radiologically, or clinically, between the two groups of patients.ConclusionsThere is no advantage to an intramedullary nail versus a sliding compression hip screw for low-energy pertrochanteric fractures AO/OTA 31-A1 and A2, specifically with its increased cost and lack of evidence to show decreased complications or improved patient outcome.

14 keywords...

hide…