Table 5 Complications of 215 patients treated for trochanteric fracture
From: Comparing two intramedullary devices for treating trochanteric fractures: A prospective study
| Â | IMHS | ENDOVIS |
|---|---|---|
Missing of proximal hole | 0 | 2 |
Misplaced proximal screws | 1 | 8 |
Failure of distal locking | 1 | 4 |
Femoral shaft medialization | 0 | 5 |
Femoral shaft fracture | 1 | 0 |
Cut out | 1 | 3 |
Z -phenomenon | 0 | 1 |
Reverse Z phenomenon | 0 | 1 |
Proximal screws back-out | 0 | 5 |
Joint penetration | 0 | 3 |
Periprosthetic fracture | 1 | 0 |
Nail breakage | 1 | 1 |
Infection | 2 | 2 |
No. complications | 8 | 35 |
Percentage | 7.3% | 33.4% |