Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

The Dutch Orthopaedic Association has a long tradition of development of practical clinical guidelines. Here we present the recommendations from the multidisciplinary clinical guideline working group for anterior cruciate ligament injury.The following 8 clinical questions were formulated by a steering group of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association.What is the role of physical examination and additional diagnostic tools?Which patient-related outcome measures should be used?What are the relevant parameters that influence the indication for an ACL reconstruction?Which findings or complaints are predictive of a bad result of an ACL injury treatment?What is the optimal timing for surgery for an ACL injury?What is the outcome of different conservative treatment modalities?Which kind of graft gives the best result in an ACL reconstruction?What is the optimal postoperative treatment concerning rehabilitation, resumption of sports, and physiotherapy?These 8 questions were answered and recommendations were made, using the “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation” instrument. This instrument seeks to improve the quality and effectiveness of clinical practical guidelines by establishing a shared framework to develop, report, and assess. The steering group has also developed 7 internal indicators to aid in measuring and enhancing the quality of the treatment of patients with an ACL injury, for use in a hospital or practice.

The patients in the plate-fixation group recovered faster than the patients in the intramedullary nailing group, but the groups had similar results at six months postoperatively and the time of final follow-up. The rate of complications requiring revision surgery was low. Implant-related complications occurred frequently and could often be treated by implant removal.

Background Studies comparing plate with intramedullary nail fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures show faster recovery in the plate group and implant-related complications in both groups after short-term followup (6 or 12 months). Knowledge of disability, complications, and removal rates beyond the first postoperative year will help surgeons in making a decision regarding optimal implant choice. However, comparative studies with followup beyond the first year or two are scarce. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) Does plate fixation or intramedullary nail fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures result in less disability? (2) Which type of fixation, plate or intramedullary, is more frequently associated with implant-related irritation and implant removal? (3) Is plate or intramedullary fixation associated with postoperative complications beyond the first postoperative year?Methods Between January 2011 and August 2012, patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were enrolled and randomized to plate or intramedullary nail fixation. A total of 58 patients with plate and 62 patients with intramedullary nails initially were enrolled. Minimum followup was 30 months (mean, 39 months; range, 30-51 months). Two patients (3%) with plate fixation and two patients (3%) with intramedullary nails were lost to followup. The QuickDASH was obtained at final followup and compared between patients who had plate fixation and those who had intramedullary nail fixation. Postoperative complications measured include infection, implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, and refracture after implant removal. Indications for implant removal included implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, patient's wish, or surgeon's preference. Results Between patients with plate versus intramedullary nail fixation, there were no differences in QuickDASH The institution of one or more of the authors (FJW, RMH, EJV) has received, during the study period, funding from the AO Foundation ((Dübendorf, Switzerland). All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Each author certifies that his institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained. Conclusions After a mean followup of 39 months, disability scores were excellent. Major complications did not occur after the 1-year followup. A frequent and bothersome problem after both surgical treatments is implant-related irritation, resulting in high rates of implant removal, after 1 year. Future research could focus on analyzing risk factors for implant irritation or removal. Level of Evidence Level II, therapeutic study.

This study shows that osteosynthesis with the PFNA does not improve the position of the implant in the femoral head compared with the PFN. However, the risk of a secondary complication and the necessity of a late reoperation are significantly higher in patients treated with a PFN compared with patients treated with a PFNA.