Comparative effectiveness research on proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw in patients with trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

The treatments for trochanteric fractures try to regain early mobility and limit morbidity and risk of re-operations. The most currently used dynamic hip screw (DHS) and the proximal femoral nail (PFN) are both with pros and cons. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of these interventions for trochanteric fractures by evaluating the surgical performance and postoperative outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register were searched for RCTs comparing DHS and PFN for trochanteric fractures. All selected studies and the risk of bias were assessed. Clinical data including operative time, intra-operative blood loss, intra-operative fluoroscopy time, successful closed reduction and complications like nonunion, implant failure and re-operation were recorded. Random-effects models were used in Review Manager software, and GRADE was applied for the interpretation of the evidence.

Results

From 286 identified trials, twelve RCTs including 1889 patients were eligible for inclusion; six RCTs directly comparing DHS with PFN, while other six compared DHS with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Compared to DHS, PFN had shorter operative time and led to less intra-operative blood loss. However, DHS need less intra-operative fluoroscopy time than PFN. No difference was seen for the achievement of closed reduction. For risk of postoperative complications, no difference was seen between PFN and DHS for non-union, risk of implant failure and revision surgery.

Conclusions

PFN(A) resulted in a shorter operative time and less intra-operative blood loss compared to DHS. However, no difference was seen for postoperative complications.

Link to article.