We have studied the effect of shortening of the femoral neck and varus collapse on the functional capacity and quality of life of patients who had undergone fixation of an isolated intracapsular fracture of the hip with cancellous screws. After screening 660 patients at four university medical centres, 70 patients with a mean age of 71 years (20 to 90) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 66% (46 of 70) of the fractures healed with > 5 mm of shortening and 39% (27 of 70) with > 5 degrees of varus. Patients with severe shortening of the femoral neck had significantly lower short form-36 questionnaire (SF-36) physical functioning scores (no/mild (<5 mm) vs severe shortening (> 10 mm); 74 vs 42 points, p < 0.001). A similar effect was noted with moderate shortening, suggesting a gradient effect (no/mild (< 5 mm) vs moderate shortening (5 to 10 mm); 74 vs 53 points, p = 0.011). Varus collapse correlated moderately with the occurrence of shortening (r = 0.66, p < 0.001). Shortening also resulted in a significantly lower EuroQol questionnaire (EQ5D) index scores (p = 0.05). In a regression analysis shortening of the femoral neck was the only significant variable predictive of a low SF-36 physical functioning score (p < 0.001).

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 incidence of acetabular fractures in the elderly population is increasing. Fractures in this population differ from those in younger patients, with more frequent involvement of the anterior column, more comminution, and more severe articular impaction in elderly patients. Although acetabular fractures in geriatric patients are more likely the result of low-energy trauma, outcomes are generally poorer than those in young patients. Multiple management options have been proposed, but no intervention has become the standard of care for these fractures in the elderly. Patient characteristics (eg, prior ambulation status, functional capacity, bone quality), the nature of the fracture, and the experience of the treating orthopaedic surgeon all must be considered when choosing among nonsurgical treatment, percutaneous fixation, open reduction and internal fixation, and immediate or delayed arthroplasty. Each treatment option has the potential for satisfactory results in properly selected patients.