Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access

Comparing surgical interventions for intertrochanteric hip fracture by blood loss and operation time: a network meta-analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research201813:157

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0852-8

  • Received: 9 January 2018
  • Accepted: 30 May 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Multiple operative treatments are available for the fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fractures. This analysis was conducted to provide guidance on the appropriate clinical choice to accommodate individual patients.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify relevant articles in databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with intertrochanteric femoral fractures were eligible if they compared 2 or more of the following interventions: proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA), percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) use, dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation, gamma nail (GN) fixation, and artificial femoral head replacement (FHR). Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to simultaneously compare all treatment methods.

Results

In total, 24 active-comparator studies involving 3097 participants were identified. Across all populations, greater reductions in blood loss and operation time were observed for PFNA than for other treatments. In terms of bleeding, more blood loss was observed for DHS use than for the PFNA (SMD, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.01–1.96), PCCP (SMD, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.31–2.20), and GN (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, − 0.35–0.87) techniques. However, a more beneficial effect was observed for DHS use than for FHR (SMD, − 0.23; 95% CI, − 1.26–0.81). DHS use resulted in a significantly longer duration of operation time than the PFNA (SMD, 0.75; 95% CI, − 0.02–0.75), PCCP (SMD, 0.61; 95% CI, − 0.20–1.44), and GN (SMD, 0.25; 95% CI, − 0.26–0.77) techniques. Similarly, greater reductions in operation time were observed for DHS use than for FHR (SMD, − 0.12; 95% CI, − 1.15–0.91).

Conclusions

The findings provide supporting evidence demonstrating the superiority of PFNA over other treatments for intertrochanteric femoral fracture. PFNA treatment results in the lowest amount of blood loss and the shortest operation time. These findings add to the existing knowledge of intertrochanteric femoral fracture treatment options.

Keywords

  • Intertrochanteric hip fracture
  • Surgical intervention
  • Meta-analysis

Background

The incidence of intertrochanteric hip fracture, which accounts for 31–51% of proximal femoral fractures [1], has increased during the last decade. Accompanied by physical deterioration, this type of fracture is prevalent among geriatric patients. Furthermore, most patients with this type of fracture experience medical comorbidities, which can worsen complications if left untreated. Consequently, early surgery is considered the best option for these patients by the majority of clinicians worldwide. The advantages of surgery include the restoration of anatomical alignment and early rehabilitation [2]. Moreover, early surgery can reduce the risk of complications.

Fixation with dynamic hip screws (DHS) is generally considered the standard management option for treating these fractures and has gained extensive acceptance [3, 4]. However, various types of implants are available, including extramedullary and intramedullary devices. Consequently, the preferred treatment option remains controversial due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these therapies. Accordingly, an analysis that integrates evidence of current on treatment options for intertrochanteric hip fracture is needed.

A traditional pairwise meta-analysis cannot simultaneously include various types of prevalent therapies. To identify the optimal treatment method, we compared all candidate therapies in the same analysis by performing a network of treatments meta-analysis involving a direct analysis and a combined analysis. We aimed to comprehensively integrate the current evidence regarding blood loss and operation time outcomes from operative interventions in patients with intertrochanteric fractures.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

EMBASE, MEDLINE, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library were searched. All searches were limited to RTCs involving humans. Searches were not limited by language, publication date, or publication status. We also reviewed the reference lists of all selected studies to identify any additional relevant articles. The searches incorporated the following keywords: “intertrochanteric fractures,” “proximal femoral nail anti-rotation,” “dynamic hip screw,” “gamma nail,” “percutaneous compression plate,” and “artificial femoral head replacement.”

Study selection

Studies that satisfied the following inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis: (1) RCTs involving human participants treated for intertrochanteric hip fractures; (2) evaluations including either surgical time or blood loss, with complete data; (3) patients aged over 18 years; (4) the highest-quality study or the most recent publication in cases where data were duplicated; (5) comparison of at least two of the five treatments studied (DHS, PFNA, GN, PCCP, FHR).

Data extraction and quality assessment

The data were reviewed independently by two extractors. Extractors resolved any disagreements by consensus. The following details were extracted from each study: name of the first author, country of origin, sample size, year of publication, treatments compared, design, population characteristics, outcome measures, and fracture classification. The outcome measures of interest were surgical time and blood loss, as measured by change from baseline. The reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of all individual studies using the JADAD scale [5]. Particularly, the reviewers assessed the procedures of randomization sequence generation, appropriate blinding, allocation concealment, and reporting of withdrawal.

Statistical analysis

Eligible trials comprising direct and indirect comparisons were summarized qualitatively. In addition, essential clinical outcomes and methodological variables were recorded. We performed a traditional “head-to-head” meta-analysis to calculate the pooled estimates of the standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We conducted the statistical analysis using Stata version 11.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) and developed a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for comparisons between two strategies [6]. The Cochrane Q test and the I2 statistic were assessed to determine the effect of between-study heterogeneity [7, 8]. Begg’s test was also conducted to investigate publication bias [9].

We also performed a random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis to enhance the head-to-head meta-analysis. Using this method, all five treatments could be simultaneously considered. In addition, this method increases statistical power by merging both direct and indirect comparison evidence across all five interventions. Therefore, conclusions could be educed on the relative effectiveness of interventions, such as GN fixation and PCCP use, which have never before been directly compared.

The network meta-analyses were undertaken using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation methods with minimally informative prior distributions. Thousands of simulated iterations were run based on the data and description of the proposed distributions of relevant parameters in WinBUGS software (version 1.4.3. MRC Biostatistics Unite, Cambridge, UK) [10]. The first 10,000 iterations (burn-in) were discarded, and 40,000 further iterations were run. Pooled effect sizes are reported as posterior medians of SMDs, and the corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were applied using the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution, which can be interpreted similar to conventional 95% CIs [11]. We also calculated the percentage contribution of each effect size in the evidence base, i.e., the probability that each treatment was the most effective therapy or the second most effective therapy, etc. The distribution of ranking probabilities is presented graphically.

Meta-regression analyses were conducted to evaluate whether the publication year and type of fractures could explain the latent heterogeneity. The inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was evaluated using the loop-specific method [12]. This approach evaluates the difference (inconsistency factor) and 95% CI, between direct and indirect estimations for a specific comparison. Inconsistency was defined as disagreement between direct and indirect evidence with a 95% CI excluding 0.

Results

Eligible studies and characteristics

After reviewing all selected studies, 24 trials involving five treatments met the selection criteria [1336]. A total of 3097 individuals with sufficient data were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The study selection process, including reasons for exclusion, is presented by a flowchart (Fig. 1). The characteristics of all involved studies are summarized in Table 1. Figure 2 shows all comparisons analyzed within the network. The study sample size varied from 60 to 426 participants, with a median sample size of 129. The mean age of patients varied from 62.2 to 83.6 years. According to the Evans or AO/OTA classification, all fractures were categorized as stable (Evans type I/II and AO/ATO type 31-A1) or unstable (Evans type III–V and AO/ATO type 31-A2/A3). In 7 trials, all selected patients had unstable fractures; in 15 trials, all selected patients had compound fractures, either stable or unstable. We conducted a quality assessment of all included studies (Table 2) and found that the studies had a broad range of overall reporting quality. The proportions of studies with definite descriptions of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, dropout, and intention-to-treat analysis were 83.33% (20/24), 70.83% (17/24), 62.5% (15/24), 87.5% (21/24), and 91.67% (22/24), respectively. According to meta-regression analyses, blood loss and operation time were not affected by differences across trials in terms of the publication year or type of fractures (Table 3). No evidence of inconsistency between the direct and indirect estimates was observed in this meta-analysis (Table 4). No publication bias was observed among the included studies (Table 5).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flowchart of the study selection process

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of included studies

Author (year)

Country

Intervention

Mean age (years)

Patients (number)

Type of fractures (unstable/stable)

Tang 2009

China

DHS, FHR

80.7

109

109/0

Verettas 2010

Greece

DHS, GN

80.1

118

118/0

Zou 2009

China

DHS, PFNA

65

121

94/27

Xu 2010

China

DHS, PFNA

78.2

106

106/0

Wang 2010

China

DHS, FHR

83.5

60

60/0

Peyser 2007

Israel

DHS, PCCP

80.8

103

60/22

Ahrengart 2002

Sweden

DHS, GN

80

426

222/204

Xu 2010

China

PFNA, GN

76.7

107

40/67

Butt 1995

UK

DHS, GN

78.5

95

30/30

Leung 1992

China

DHS, GN

79.6

186

50/136

Kosygan 2002

England

DHS, PCCP

82.8

108

49/59

Peter 1995

Canada

DHS, GN

80.1

102

58/44

Kukla 1997

Austria

DHS, GN

83.5

120

54/66

Yang 2011

America

DHS, PCCP

76.5

66

NA

Hoffman 1996

New Zealand

DHS, GN

80.9

67

22/45

Garg 2011

India

DHS, PFNA

62.2

81

81/0

Guo 2013

China

PFNA, PCCP

72.9

90

49/41

Brandt 2002

Netherlands

DHS, PCCP

80.9

71

41/30

Aktselis 2014

Greece

DHS, GN

83

71

71/0

Vaquero 2012

Spain

PFNA, GN

83.6

61

61/0

Utrilla 2005

Spain

DHS, GN

80.2

210

54/156

Goldhagen 1994

America

DHS, GN

78

63

NA

Christopher 2001

England

DHS, GN

81

400

193/207

Huang 2006

China

DHS, FHR

72.8

156

43/113

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The eligible clinical trials included in the network meta-analysis. The width of the connecting lines is proportional to the number of available head-to-head (direct) comparisons. The size of each node is proportional to the number of randomly assigned participants (sample size)

Table 2

Methodological quality assessment by adjusted Jadad scale

Author

Random sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants

Dropout Addressed

ITT

Tang 2009

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Adequate

Y

Verettas 2010

Adequate

Unclear

Unclear

Adequate

Y

Zou 2009

Inadequate

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Y

Xu 2010

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Wang 2010

Inadequate

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

N

Peyser 2007

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Ahrengart 2002

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Xu 2010

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Butt 1995

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Unclear

Y

Leung 1992

Adequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Y

Kosygan 2002

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Peter 1995

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Kukla 1997

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Yang 2011

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Hoffman 1996

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Garg 2011

Adequate

Unclear

Unclear

Adequate

N

Guo 2013

Adequate

Adequate

Unclear

Adequate

Y

Brandt 2002

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Aktselis 2014

Inadequate

Unclear

Unclear

Adequate

Y

Vaquero2012

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Utrilla 2005

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Goldhagen 1994

Adequate

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Y

Christopher

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

Huang 2006

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Y

ITT intention-to-treat analysis

Table 3

Results of the meta-regression

Outcome

Regression coefficient(95%CI)

Publication year

Type of fractures

Blood loss

− 0.02 (− 0.11, 0.08)

− 0.70 (− 2.04, 0.64)

Operation time

− 0.32 (− 0.10, 0.04)

− 0.22 (− 1.28, 0.83)

Table 4

Assessment of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence

Loop

Blood loss

Operation time

Inconsistency 95% CI

Inconsistency 95% CI

DHS,PCCP, PFNA

3.59 (0.00, 7.33)

1.82 (0.00, 5.77)

DHS, GN, PFNA

2.66 (0.00, 4.77)

0.71 (0.00, 2.71)

Table 5

Assessment of heterogeneity and publication bias for trials included indirect meta-analyses

Comparisons

Number

Q-test heterogeneity(P/I2)

Begg’s test (p)

Blood loss

 DHS vs PFNA

2

0.00/98.3%

1.00

 DHS vs GN

7

0.01/66%

0.76

 DHS vs PCCP

3

0.00/82.9%

1.00

 DHS vs FHR

3

0.04/69.4%

0.30

 PFNA vs GN

1

NA

NA

 PFNA vs PCCP

1

NA

NA

Operation time

 DHS vs PFNA

3

0.00/98.8%

0.30

 DHS vs GN

11

0.00/91.5%

1.00

 DHS vs PCCP

4

0.00/92.9%

0.73

 DHS vs FHR

3

0.00/91.4%

1.00

 PFNA vs GN

2

0.63/0%

1.00

 PFNA vs PCCP

1

NA

NA

P < 0.05 indicates significant heterogeneity in Cochrane Q-test, publication bias in Begg’s test. NA not applicable

Blood loss

The results of our network meta-analysis comparing the five treatments regarding the outcome of blood loss are reported in Table 6. The outcome of five treatments ranked by the blood loss is also presented. Except for FHR, all interventions had greater effects on blood loss than DHS treatment. A relatively greater increase in blood loss was seen in DHS treatment than for PFNA (SMD 1.96; 95% CI, 1.014–1.963) or PCCP (SMD 1.26; 95% CI, 0.31–2.20) interventions (Table 6). This finding indicated that the PFNA intervention leads to the least blood loss among the five treatments studied. PFNA intervention consistently showed the highest probability of having the superior ranking position among all approaches, and PCCP use showed the second highest probability (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Ranking probability curves for blood loss during the operation. The graph displays the distribution of probabilities for each treatment. The X-axis represents the rank, and the Y-axis represents probabilities. The ranking indicates the probability that a particular treatment is the “best,” “second best,” etc

Table 6

Results of the direct and indirect meta-analyses

a

DHS

3.41(0.13, 6.70)

0.17(− 0.04, 0.38)

0.71(0.11, 1.31)

− 0.19(− 0.61, 0.22)

1.96(1.014, 1.963)

PFNA

− 0.43(− 0.81, − 0.04)

0.93(0.50, 1.37)

NA

0.26(− 0.35, 0.87)

− 1.70(− 2.74, − 0.66)

GN

NA

NA

1.26(0.31, 2.20)

− 0.70(− 1.87, 0.46)

1.00(− 0.10, 2.09)

PCCP

NA

− 0.23(− 1.26, 0.81)

− 2.19(− 3.60, − 0.77)

− 0.49(− 1.69, 0.71)

− 1.49(− 2.90, − 0.08)

FHR

b

DHS

1.24(− 1.36, 3.84)

0.21(− 0.12, 0.54)

0.34(− 0.49, 1.16)

− 0.12(− 0.92, 0.67)

0.75(− 0.02, 0.75)

PFNA

− 0.30(− 0.60, 0.01)

0.94(0.50, 1.37)

NA

0.25(− 0.26, 0.77)

− 0.49(− 1.3, 0.33)

GN

NA

NA

0.61(− 0.20, 1.44)

− 0.14(− 1.16, 0.88)

0.35(− 0.59, 1.32)

PCCP

NA

− 0.12(− 1.15, 0.91)

− 0.86(− 2.15, 0.42)

− 0.37(− 1.52, 0.78)

− 0.72(− 2.03, 0.59)

FHR

a Comparison of blood loss between 5 treatments. b Comparison of operation time between 5 treatments. Results of direct comparisons are listed in the upper triangle, and the estimation was calculated as the row-defining treatment compared with the column-defining treatment. Results of network meta-analysis are listed in the lower triangle, and the estimation was calculated as the column-defining treatment compared with the row-defining treatment

Operation time

Table 6 shows the results of the network meta-analysis on the outcome of operation time. Except for FHR, all interventions had greater effects on operation time than DHS treatment. A relatively longer operation time was observed for DHS than for PFNA (SMD 0.75; 95% CI, − 0.02–0.75) or PCCP (SMD 0.61; 95% CI, − 0.20–1.44) interventions. A significantly shorter duration was observed for the PFNA approach than for GN (SMD − 0.49; 95% CI, − 1.3–0.33), or FHR use (SMD − 0.86; 95% CI, − 2.15–0.42). Therefore, PFNA, PCCP, and GN interventions resulted in significantly greater decreases in operation time. Figure 4 shows that among the five treatments, PFNA treatment exhibited the highest probability of reducing the operation time, and PCCP treatment had the second highest probability.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Ranking probability curves for operation time. The graph displays the distribution of probabilities for each treatment. The X-axis represents the rank, and the Y-axis represents probabilities. The ranking indicates the probability that a particular treatment is the “best,” “second best,” etc

Discussion

This network meta-analysis reviewed existing evidence for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures, with the aim to synthesize the evidence and to confirm decision-making in the absence of direct comparisons. Almost all previous RCTs or meta-analysis studies were evaluations of direct comparisons among DHS, GN, PFNA, and PCCP approaches. Few studies compared FHR with these treatments. Our findings integrate these previous comparisons.

With the rapid increase in the aging population, intertrochanteric hip fractures have shown an increasing trend. This type of fracture is a worldwide health problem, leading to serious medical consequences that interfere with quality of life and mortality [37]. During the past decades, this type of fracture has resulted in increased economic burden and has led to increased consumption of health care resources [38]. Nevertheless, considerable debate and controversy still exist regarding the optimal method and device for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures.

The DHS, which is an extramedullary fixation device, has previously been considered the gold standard treatment for intertrochanteric fractures [39]. However, this intervention, although technically simpler, requires a considerable amount of exposure and ambient soft tissue stripping, which can lead to heavy bleeding [40]. The disadvantages of traditional internal fixation, such as increased blood loss, postoperative pain, and slow function recovery, led to the emergence of a minimally invasive surgical option as an alternative treatment technique [41]. PCCP is a new type of minimally invasive surgical device. It consists of a biaxial, two parallel femoral neck screws, and three cortical screws. We can insert the screws through two 2-cm incisions percutaneously. Compared with DHS implants, it can reduce the damage of the lateral cortex and lateral femoral muscles. GN is an intramedullary implant with a short lever arm and a small bending moment. Compared with DHS implants, this implant has two advantages: The relatively semi-closed operation through a small incision does not require exposure of the fracture site; in addition, sliding screws can generate pressure on the proximal medial cortex to increase the stability of internal plants and fracture site. Therefore, inserting GN nails helps to reduce blood loss and shorten the operation time. PFNA intervention involves an innovative implant developed by the AO/ASIF group that is based on a proximal femoral nail (PFN) with a special helical blade. We found that PFNA treatment leads to the lowest amount of blood loss and the shortest operation time among the five treatments.

After PFNA, the amount of blood loss for each method ranked in the following increasing order: PCCP, GN, FHR, and DHS. Less blood loss during an operation leads to fewer incidences of allogenic blood and reduces potential risks of transfusion reactions, disease transmission and immunomodulation [4244]. The risk of a serious or fatal transfusion-transmitted disease is approximately 3 in 10,000, while the chance of a minor allogenic reaction is 1 in 100 [42]. Regarding the reduction in operation time, PFNA treatment was also ranked as the top intervention. A shorter surgical time reduces the risk of minor or major anesthesia problems and blood loss, which helps to prevent the occurrence of anemia and hypoalbuminemia and improves patient recovery. Additionally, from a mechanical point of view, adequate evidence has demonstrated the superiority of the helical blade over a sliding hip screw for head stabilization and fragment sliding. The distinctive design consists of a large surface and an incremental core diameter, assuring maximum compaction and optimal hold in the bone. Because the PFNA blade can induce compaction of cortical bone, the increased rotational and angular stability can resist rotation and varus collapse of the head, as shown in cadaveric studies [45]. Therefore, PFNA, one type of modified minimally invasive implant technique used for internal fixation in elderly patients, is generally accepted in modern treatment of orthopedic trauma [46, 47].

The advantages of our analysis are that we simultaneously compared more than two treatments in the same analysis and provided relative effect estimates for all treatment comparisons, even for those that have not been directly compared before; thus, for each treatment, we estimated the probability that the given treatment is optimal. However, there are several limitations of our network meta-analyses that need to be acknowledged. First, we only analyzed total blood loss and surgical time because these were the most frequently reported outcomes in all included studies. However, many other outcomes should be considered, such as postoperative functional status, radiation time, complication rate, and fixation failure. Additional clinical trials and longitudinal studies with these outcomes may be reported in the future, enabling similar analyses. Second, statistical heterogeneity was moderate; however, most comparisons had wide 95% CIs and included values that indicated very high or no heterogeneity. Existing uncertainties regarding the potential heterogeneity of these studies should be explored.

Conclusion

In conclusion, PFNA is biomechanically and biologically superior to other implant techniques for treating intertrochanteric hip fractures. It provides stable intramedullary fixation to resist varus collapse, leading to the lowest amount of blood loss and the shortest operation time.

Notes

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

CNKI: 

Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure

DHS: 

Dynamic Hip Screw

FHR: 

Artificial Femoral Head Replacement

GN: 

Gamma Nail

NA: 

Not applicable

PCCP: 

Percutaneous Compression Plate

PFNA: 

Proximal Femoral Nail Anti-rotation

RCT: 

Randomized Controlled Trial

SMD: 

Standard mean difference

Declarations

Funding

Each author certifies that he, or a member of his immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Authors’ contributions

Both ZAH and XFW contribute equally to this paper. This paper is approved by all authors for publication. All authors contribute to the data analysis and in drafting and critically revising the paper and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published map and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Orthopaedics, Yuhang Branch of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
(2)
Department of Respiration, Yuhang Branch of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

References

  1. Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, Mcqueen MM. Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:394–400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrengart L, Törnkvist H, Fornander P, Thorngren KG, Pasanen L, Wahlström P, et al. A randomized study of the compression hip screw and Gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;401:209–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Aktselis I, Kokoroghiannis C, Fragkomichalos E, Koundis G, Deligeorgis A, Daskalakis E, et al. Prospective randomised controlled trial of an intrame-dullary nail versus a sliding hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Int Orthop. 2014;38:155–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anothaisintawee T, Attia J, Nickel JC, Thammakraisorn S, Numthavaj P, McEvoy M, et al. Management of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome:a systematic reviewand network meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;305:78–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS. Comparison of dynamic hip screwand gammanail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury. 1995;26:615–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;33:897–900.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaimani A, Higgins JPT, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng T, Zhang G, Zhang X. Review: minimally invasive versus conventional dynamic hip screw fixation in elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Innov. 2011;18:99–105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0.The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011; Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 29 Mar 2011.
  10. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodd RY. The risk of transfusion-transmitted infection. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:419–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Doppelt SH. The sliding compression screw—today’s best answer for stabilization of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 1980;11:507–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastwood EA, Magaziner J, Wang J, Silberzweig SB, Hannan EL, Strauss E, et al. Patients with hip fracture: subgroups and their outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1240–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Garg B, Marimuthu K, Kumar V, Malhotra R, Kotwal PP. Outcome of short proximalfemoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw for fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective comparative trial. Hip Int. 2011;21:531–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldhagen PR, O'Connor DR, Schwarze D, Schwartz E. A prospective comparative s-tudy of the compression hip screw and the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8:367–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Guo Q, Shen Y, Zong Z, Zhao Y, Liu H, Hua X, et al. Percutaneous compressionplate versus proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in treating elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Orthop Sci. 2013;18:977–86.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Haidukewych GJ, Israel TA, Berry DJ. Reverse obliquity fractures of the intertrochanteric region of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:643–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins JP, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1996;15:2733–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffman CW, Lynskey TG. Intertrochanteric fractures of the femur: a randomized pr-ospective comparison of the Gamma nail and the Ambi hip screw. ANZ J Surg. 1996;66:151–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang XQ, Liao YH, Wang XD, Wang XM, Gon SH. Recovery of lower limb func-tion in elder patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated with hip joint replacement versus dynamic hip screw. Chin J Clil Reha. 2006;4:36–8.Google Scholar
  22. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kosygan KP, Mohan RNewman RJ. The Gotfried percutaneous compression plate co-mpared with the conventional classic hip screw for the fixation of intertrochanteric f-ractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:19–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kukla C, Heinz T, Berger G, Kwasny O, Rosenberger A, Vécsei V. Gamma nail vs. dynamic hip screw in 120 patients over 60 years—a randomized trial. Eur Surg. 1997;29:290–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Leslie WD, Metge CJ, Mahmoud A, Lix LM, Finlayson GS, Morin SN, et al. Direct costs of fractures in Canada and trends 1996-2006: a population-based cost-of-illness analysis. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:2419–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY, Hui PW. Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for p-eritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:345–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Linden JV, Kaplan HS. Transfusion errors: causes and effects. Transfus Med Rev. 1994;8:169–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH. Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:441–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. O'Brien PJ, Meek RN, Blachut PA, Broekhuyse HM, Sabharwal S. Fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: gamma nail versus dynamic hip screw. A randomized, prospective study. Can J Surg. 1995;38:516–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Parker MJ, Gurusamy K Modern methods of treating hip fractures. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27:1045–1051.Google Scholar
  31. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullarynails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;16:CD000093.Google Scholar
  32. Perkins HA. Transfusion-induced immunologic unresponsiveness. Transfus Med Rev. 1988;2:196–203.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Peyser A, Weil YA, Brocke L, Sela Y, Mosheiff R, Mattan Y, et al. A prospective, randomised study comparing the percutaneous compression plate and the compression hip screw for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1210–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for p-resenting results from multiple treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. WinBugs version 1.4 user manual. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2003.Google Scholar
  36. Strauss E, Frank J, Lee J, Kummer FJ, Tejwani N. Helical blade versus sliding hip screw for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. Injury. 2006;37:984–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tang C, Xiang Z, Shen X. Prospective study of artificial femoral head replacement and DHS internal fixation for comminuted femoral intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Chin J Bone Joint Injury. 2009;9:778–80.Google Scholar
  38. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, Tufanisco CB. 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. 2005;19:229–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Verettas DA, Ifantidis PC. Systematic effects of surgical treatment of hip fractures: gl-iding screw-plating vs intramedullary nailing. Injury. 2010;41:279–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wandel S, Jüni P, Tendal B, Nüesch E, Villiger PM, Welton NJ, et al. Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;341:c4675.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Y, He P, Wei L. A randomly controlled study of instable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur in elderly patients treated by artificial femoral head replace-ment and DHS internal fixation. Chin J Bone Joint Injury. 2010;10:869–72.Google Scholar
  42. White JJ, Khan WS, Smitham PJ. Perioperative implications of surgery in elderly patients with hip fractures: an evidence-based review. J Perioper Pract. 2011;21:192–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu YZ, Geng DC, Mao HQ, Zhu XS, Yang HL. A comparison of the proximal fem-oral nail antirotation device and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fracture. J Int Med Res. 2010;38:1266–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Xu YZ, Geng DC, Yang H, Zhu GM, Wang XB. Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury. 2010;41:1234–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Zou J, Xu Y, Yang H. A comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw devices in trochanteric fractures. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1057–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang E, Qureshi S, Trokhan S, Joseph D. Gotfried percutaneous compression plating compared with sliding hip screw fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: a prospect-ive randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:942–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhou Z, Zhang X, Tian S, Wu Y. Minimally invasive versus conventional dynamic hip screw for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in older patients. Orthopedics. 2012;35:e244–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement