Objective-To study the mortality and morbidity associated with proximal femoral fractures with reference to fracture type (intracapsular and extracapsular).
We undertook a prospective randomised controlled trial involving 400 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip to determine whether there was any difference in outcome between treatment with a cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty and an uncemented Austin-Moore prosthesis. The surviving patients were followed up for between two and five years by a nurse blinded to the type of prosthesis used. The mean age of the patients was 83 years (61 to 104) and 308 (77%) were women. The degree of residual pain was less in those treated with a cemented prosthesis (p < 0.0001) three months after surgery. Regaining mobility was better in those treated with a cemented implant (p = 0.005) at six months after operation. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to mortality, implant-related complications, re-operations or post-operative medical complications. The use of a cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty resulted in less pain and less deterioration in mobility than an uncemented Austin-Moore prosthesis with no increase in complications.
A total of 455 patients aged over 70 years with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the proximal femur was randomised to be treated either by hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation. The preoperative characteristics of the patients in both groups were similar. Internal fixation has a shorter length of anaesthesia (36 minutes versus 57 minutes, p < 0.0001), lower operative blood loss (28 ml versus 177 ml, p < 0.0001) and lower transfusion requirements (0.04 units versus 0.39 units, p < 0.0001). In the internal fixation group 90 patients required 111 additional surgical procedures while only 15 additional operations on the hip were needed in 12 patients in the arthroplasty group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the groups at one year (61/226 versus 63/229, p = 0.91), but there was a tendency for an improved survival in the older less mobile patients treated by internal fixation. For the survivors assessed at one, two and three years from injury there were no differences with regard to the outcome for pain and mobility. Limb shortening was more common after internal fixation (7.0 mm versus 3.6 mm, p = 0.004). We recommend that displaced intracapsular fractures in the elderly should generally be treated by arthroplasty but that internal fixation may be appropriate for those who are very frail.
In a randomised trial involving 598 patients with 600 trochanteric fractures of the hip, the fractures were treated with either a sliding hip screw (n = 300) or a Targon PF intramedullary nail (n = 300). The mean age of the patients was 82 years (26 to 104). All surviving patients were reviewed at one year with functional outcome assessed by a research nurse blinded to the treatment used. The intramedullary nail was found to have a slightly increased mean operative time (46 minutes (sd 12.3) versus 49 minutes (sd 12.7), p < 0.001) and an increased mean radiological screening time (0.3 minutes (sd 0.2) versus 0.5 minutes (sd 0.3), p < 0.001). Operative difficulties were more common with the intramedullary nail. There was no statistically significant difference between implants for wound healing complications (p = 1), or need for post-operative blood transfusion (p = 1), and medical complications were similarly distributed in both groups. There was a tendency to fewer revisions of fixation or conversion to an arthroplasty in the nail group, although the difference was not statistically significant (nine versus three cases, p = 0.14). The extent of shortening, loss of hip flexion, mortality and degree of residual pain were similar in both groups. The recovery of mobility was superior for those treated with the intramedullary nails (p = 0.01 at one year from injury). In summary, both implants produced comparable results but there was a tendency to better return of mobility for those treated with the intramedullary nail.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.