Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of subtrochanteric femur fractures treated with an intramedullary nail, augmented with or without cerclage wiring, comparing the risk of reoperation, nonunion, loss of fixation, and implant failure; fracture reduction and time to union. Data Source: A systematic review according to PreferredReporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords on September 30, 2020.Study Selection: All comparative (prospective and retrospective) studies of subtrochanteric fractures managed with intramedullary nail, that compared the addition of cerclage wire to without in patients 16 years of age or older were included. Pathological, atypical bisphosphonate, and segmental fractures were excluded, as were non-English literature.Data Extraction: Data from each study were independently recorded by 2 investigators.Data Synthesis: Agreement was obtained on 18 studies (all retrospective) for final inclusion, with 378 patients receiving cerclage wire and 911 without. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to analyze the pooled aggregate data. Conclusions:There is no statistically significant advantage in using cerclage wire with femoral intramedullary nail when treating subtrochanteric femur fractures regarding risk of reoperation, nonunion, loss of fixation, and implant failure or time to union. An advantage favoring cerclage wire was seen for accuracy of fracture reduction. Cerclage wiring was used more often in cases associated with high-energy trauma. Given the relatively small number of events available to be modelled, a clinical benefit for cerclage wiring may still exist for certain fracture types.

Background: Both dual-mobility (DM) constructs and large femoral head bearings (⩾36 mm) reduce dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited research comparing DM with large bearings. Methods: A systematic review of published literature was performed including studies that compared DM with large femoral head bearings in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was revision surgery for dislocation. The secondary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Other complications were recorded. 2 authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a fixed-effect model, where appropriate. Results: 9 studies, all retrospective, met the final inclusion criteria. 2722 patients received DM and 9,789 large femoral head bearings. The difference in the odds of revision surgery for dislocation (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45–1.01; p = 0.06) and aseptic loosening are unclear (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36–1.05; p = 0.07); including important benefits and no difference. There was a benefit favouring DM for the risk of all-cause revision (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56–0.86; p = 0.001), revision for fracture (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29–0.81; p = 0.005) and dislocation not requiring revision (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14–0.57; p < 0.001). The estimate in the difference in the odds of revision surgery for infection was imprecise (OR 0.78; 95% CI, 05.1–1.20; p = 0.26). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that there may be clinically relevant benefits of DM constructs over large femoral head bearings. Prospective randomised studies are warranted given these findings.