OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hip replacement and intramedullary nails for treating unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare hip replacement with intramedullary nail in the management of elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric femur fracture were retrieved from Cochrane Library (up to January 2018), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data, PubMed, and Embase. The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and relevant data was extracted. Statistical analysis was performed by Revman 5.3. Where possible, we performed the limited pooling of data.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials including a total of 1067 participants aged 65 and above were included for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included study was poor. The meta-analysis indicated that the hip replacement group benefited more than the intramedullary nail group in terms of the bearing load time (WMD -14.61, 95% CI -21.51 to -7.7, P < 0.0001), mechanical complications (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.57, P < 0.0001), and post-operative complications (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.93, P = 0.03). While the intramedullary nail was superior to arthroplasty regarding the intraoperative blood loss (WMD 58.36, 95% CI 30.77 to 85.94, P < 0.0001). However, there were no statistical significances in the length of surgery (WMD 5.27, 95% CI 4.23 to 14.77, P = 0.28), units of blood transfusion (WMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.85, P = 0.18), length of hospital stay (WMD -1.00, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.93, P = 0.31), Harris hip score (WMD 0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.01, P = 0.38), and mortality (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 13.10, P = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of hip replacement and intramedullary nail in treating unstable intertrochanteric fractures. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological limitations and publication bias.