Treatment of Pathologic Peritrochanteric Fractures Using Sliding Hip Screws Augmented with Cerclage Reconstruction Plates

We proposed a new method to augment the traditional sliding hip screw (SHS) with cerclage reconstruction plates to treat pathologically impending and actual peritrochanteric fractures as well as to revise open reductions and internal fixations to increase the construct strength against the shearing force, thus reducing the implant failure rate. In this retrospective study, patients with peritrochanteric pathology with at least two years of follow-up who underwent augmentation with cerclage reconstruction plates (modified SHS) and conventional SHS between 1 May 2015 and 31 May 2017 were divided into groups A (n = 12) and B (n = 28), respectively. Demographic data, surgery duration, blood loss, complications, and local radiotherapy were analyzed. The average surgery duration was significantly longer in group A (p = 0.013). The estimated intraoperative and perioperative blood losses were not significantly different between the groups. The implant survival rates were not significantly different under competing risk analysis. The success rate of a revision surgery with modified SHS was excellent, and implant survival time was >2 years, as observed with the previous SHS constructs. Subtrochanteric region involvement and a postoperative visual analog scale ≥4 could be risk factors of implant failure and revision surgery. This technique can be an alternative treatment for difficult pathologic peritrochanteric fractures, especially those with previous plating failure.

Intramedullary nailing versus sliding hip screw for A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures

Aims This study evaluated variation in the surgical treatment of stable (A1) and unstable (A2) trochanteric hip fractures among an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, and determined the influence of patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics on choice of implant (intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus sliding hip screw (SHS)). Methods A total of 128 orthopaedic surgeons in the Science of Variation Group evaluated radiographs of 30 patients with Type A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures and indicated their preferred treatment: IMN or SHS. The management of Type A3 (reverse obliquity) trochanteric fractures was not evaluated. Agreement between surgeons was calculated using multirater kappa. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics were independently associated with choice of implant. Results The overall agreement between surgeons on implant choice was fair (kappa = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.28)). Factors associated with preference for IMN included USA compared to Europe or the UK (Europe odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.67); UK OR 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22); p < 0.001); exposure to IMN only during training compared to surgeons that were exposed to both (only IMN during training OR 2.6 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.4); p < 0.001); and A2 compared to A1 fractures (Type A2 OR 10 (95% CI 8.4 to 12); p < 0.001). Conclusion In an international cohort of orthopaedic surgeons, there was a large variation in implant preference for patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric fractures. This is due to surgeon bias (country of practice and aspects of training). The observation that surgeons favoured the more expensive implant (IMN) in the absence of convincing evidence of its superiority suggests that surgeon de-biasing strategies may be a useful focus for optimizing patient outcomes and promoting value-based healthcare.