Cephalomedullary nailing versus sliding hip screws for Intertrochanteric and basicervical hip fractures: a propensity-matched study of short-term outcomes in over 17,000 patients
- 18 Downloads
Hip fractures are associated with poor mortality and morbidity outcomes. Controversy exists over what the preferred treatment is between sliding hips screws (SHSs) and cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) for stable intertrochanteric (IT) and basicervical (BC) hip fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare early postoperative outcomes and complications in patients treated with SHS to those treated with CMN in IT and BC hip fractures.
We used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify IT and BC hip fractures, excluding subtrochanteric hip fractures treated with a SHS and CMN for 2008 to 2016. After propensity score matching, there were 8505 patients in the SHS cohort and 8505 in the CMN cohort. Propensity score-adjusted multivariate regression models assed SHS as an independent risk factor for the following 30-day outcomes: mortality, postoperative major and minor complications, discharge disposition, readmission and reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and operative time.
No difference in mortality was encountered between SHS and CMN (p = 0.440). Compared to CMN, the SHS cohort had an 11.6% decreased likelihood of a minor complication (p < 0.001); however, no difference was found between CMN and SHS for major complications (p = 0.117). SHS patients were less likely to have transfusion (p < 0.001), DVT (p = 0.007), and MI (0.024). SHS patients were 12.5% more likely to go home (p = 0.002). No association was discovered between being treated with a SHS and reoperation (p = 0.449) and readmission (p = 0.588). SHS patients had almost a quarter of a day longer LOS (p = 0.041). Patients treated with SHS had a statistically significant (p < 0.001), but clinically irrelevant 2-min longer procedure.
Level of evidence
KeywordsSliding hip screw Cephalomedullary nail Hip fracture Mortality Postoperative complications Discharge disposition Readmission Length of stay
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Magazine P, Haentjen J, Colón-Emeri C, Vanderschueren D, Milise K, Velkeniers B, Boone B (2009) Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older. Ann Intern Med 152:380–390Google Scholar
- 4.Prieto-Alhambra D, Reyes C, Sainz MS et al (2018) In-hospital care, complications, and 4-month mortality following a hip or proximal femur fracture: the Spanish registry of osteoporotic femur fractures prospective cohort study. Arch Osteoporos 13:96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0515- CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Judd KT, Christianson E (2015) Expedited operative care of hip fractures results in significantly lower cost of treatment. Iowa Orthop J 35:62–64Google Scholar
- 14.Kouvidis G, Sakellariou VI, Mavrogenis AF et al (2012) Dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail versus the classic sliding hip screw for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective randomized study. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 7:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11751-012-0146-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Socci AR, Casemyr NE, Leslie MP, Baumgaertner MR (2017) Implant options for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip rationale, evidence, and recommendations. Bone Joint J 99-B:128–133. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0134.R1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Pandarinath R, Amdur R, DeBritz JN, Rao RD (2018) Comparison of short-term complication rates between cephalomedullary hip screw devices and sliding hip screws: an analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 26:845–851. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Huang X, Leung F, Xiang Z et al (2013) Proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw fixation for trochanteric fractures : a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci World J 2013:80580Google Scholar
- 22.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2014) Hip fracture: management. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 27.Parker MJ, Cawley S (2017) Sliding hip screw versus the Targon PFT nail for trochanteric hip fractures. Bone Joint J 99B:1210–1215. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B9.BJJ-2016-1279.R1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.NSQIP (n.d.) American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip? Accessed 25 Aug 2018
- 36.Cohen ME, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY et al (2013) Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J Am Coll Surg 217:336–346.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.02.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Harrell FEJ (2015) rms: regression modeling strategies. R package version 4.4-0Google Scholar
- 43.Gill J, Jensen L, Chin P et al (2007) Intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with the trochanteric fixation nail and sliding hip screw. J Surg Orthop Adv Summer 16:62–66Google Scholar
- 44.Wang Q, Yang X, He HZ et al (2014) Comparative study of interTAN and dynamic hip screw in treatment of femoral intertrochanteric injury and wound. Int J Clin Exp Med 7:5578–5582Google Scholar
- 46.Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, Tufanisco CB (2005) Trochanteric Gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 19:229–233. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bot.0000151819.95075.ad CrossRefGoogle Scholar