• Martyn J Parker and Avishek Das.
• Department of Orthopaedics, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, UK. martyn.parker@pbh-tr.nhs.uk.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28; 2013 (2): CD000339CD000339.

BackgroundExtramedullary fixation of hip fractures involves the application of a plate and screws to the lateral side of the proximal femur. In external fixators, the stabilising component is held outside the thigh by pins or screws driven into the bone. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effects of different types of extramedullary fixation implant, as well as external fixators, for treating extracapsular proximal femoral (hip) fractures in adults.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to June Week 4 2011), EMBASE (1988 to 2011 Week 25), various other databases, conference proceedings and reference lists.Selection CriteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extramedullary implants or external fixators for fixing extracapsular hip fracture in adults were included.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate.Main ResultsThe 18 included trials tested seven comparisons in a total of 2615 mainly female and older participants with a total of 2619 fractures. All trials had methodological flaws that may affect the validity of their results.Three trials of 355 participants comparing a fixed nail plate (Jewett or McLaughlin) with the sliding hip screw (SHS) found an increased risk of fixation failure for fixed nail plates.The two trials of 433 participants comparing the Resistance Augmented Bateaux (RAB) plate with the SHS had contrasting results, notably in terms of operative complications, fixation failure and anatomical restoration.One trial of 100 participants comparing the Pugh nail and the SHS found no significant difference between implants.Three trials of 458 participants compared the Medoff plate with the SHS. There was a trend to higher blood losses and longer operation times for the Medoff plate along with a trend to a lower risk of fixation failure with the Medoff plate for unstable trochanteric fractures.Two trials of 676 participants compared the Medoff plate with three different screw-plate systems. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome for trochanteric fractures. For subtrochanteric fractures, there was a lower fixation failure rate for the Medoff plate but no evidence for differences in longer-term outcomes.Four trials of 396 participants comparing the Gotfried percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) with a SHS found a trend to lower blood loss and transfusion requirements for the PCCP but no other confirmed differences in outcomes between implants. Three of the trials reported intra-operative problems with the PCCP, some of which precluded its use.Three trials of 200 participants comparing external fixation with a SHS found less operative trauma for the external fixation. Final outcome appeared similar.Authors' ConclusionsThe markedly increased fixation failure rate of fixed nail plates compared with the SHS is a major consideration and thus the SHS appears preferable.There was insufficient evidence from other comparisons of extramedullary implants or on the use of external fixators to draw definite conclusions.

14 keywords...

hide…