Language:

Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults

Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010-09, Vol.2010 (9), p.CD000093-CD000093 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ;EISSN: 1465-1858 ;EISSN: 1469-493X ;DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub5 ;PMID: 20824825

Full text available

Citations Cited by

Actions
1. Add to My Research
2. Remove from My Research
3. E-mail
4. Print
5. Permalink
6. Citation
7. EasyBib
8. EndNote
9. RefWorks
10. Delicious
11. Export RIS
12. Export BibTeX

Title:
Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults
Author: Parker, Martyn J ; Handoll, Helen HG ; Parker, Martyn J
Subjects: Adult ; Bone Nails ; Bone Nails - adverse effects ; Bone Screws ; Bone Screws - adverse effects ; Bones of appendicular skeleton ; Cephalocondylic nails (Gamma nail etc) ; Equipment Design ; Extracapsular hip fracture ; Extracapsular hip fracture alone ; Fracture Fixation, Internal ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - adverse effects ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - adverse effects ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation ; Fracture of bones of the appendicular skeleton (reviews/protocols are also listed under headings for specific bones) ; Fractures ; Hip Fractures ; Hip Fractures - mortality ; Hip Fractures - surgery ; Hip or pelvis trauma ; Humans ; Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences ; Orthopaedics & trauma ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Surgical treatment ; Treatment
Is Part Of: Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010-09, Vol.2010 (9), p.CD000093-CD000093
Description: Background Two types of implants used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures are cephalocondylic intramedullary nails, which are inserted into the femoral canal proximally to distally across the fracture, and extramedullary implants (e.g. the sliding hip screw). Objectives To compare cephalocondylic intramedullary nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (April 2010), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 13), and other sources. Selection criteria All randomised and quasi‐randomised controlled trials comparing cephalocondylic nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Data collection and analysis Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Wherever appropriate, results were pooled. Main results We included 43 trials containing predominantly older people with mainly trochanteric fractures.     Twenty‐two trials (3749 participants) compared the Gamma nail with the sliding hip screw (SHS). The Gamma nail was associated with increased risk of operative and later fracture of the femur and increased reoperation rate. There were no major differences between implants in wound infection, mortality or medical complications. Five trials (623 participants) compared the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) with the SHS. Fracture fixation complications were more common in the IMHS group. Results for post‐operative complications, mortality and functional outcomes were similar in both groups. Three trials (394 participants) showed no difference in fracture fixation complications, reoperation, wound infection and length of hospital stay for proximal femoral nail (PFN) versus the SHS. None of the 10 trials (1491 participants) of other nail versus extramedullary implant comparisons for trochanteric fractures provided sufficient evidence to establish definite differences between the implants under test. Two trials (65 participants) found intramedullary nails were associated with fewer fracture fixation complications than fixed nail plates for unstable fractures at the level of the lesser trochanter. Two trials (124 participants) found a tendency to less fracture healing complications with the intramedullary nails compared with fixed nail plates for subtrochanteric fractures. Authors' conclusions With its lower complication rate in comparison with intramedullary nails, and absence of functional outcome data to the contrary, the SHS appears superior for trochanteric fractures. Further studies are required to confirm whether more recently developed designs of intramedullary nail avoid the complications of previous nails. Intramedullary nails may have advantages over fixed angle plates for subtrochanteric and some unstable trochanteric fractures, but further studies are required.
Publisher: Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Language: English
Identifier: EISSN: 1465-1858
EISSN: 1469-493X
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub5
PMID: 20824825
Source: MEDLINE
Alma/SFX Local Collection
Cochrane Library (Open Aceess)

Back to results list


INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY	(84-028) 37 755 057	Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM	thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn	Feedback

Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults

Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ;EISSN: 1465-1858 ;EISSN: 1469-493X ;DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub5 ;PMID: 20824825

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait