Plate, short nail, or long nail? Revision rates and complications of three different treatments for peritrochanteric femur fractures.

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate the relationship between peritrochanteric femur fracture (OTA 31A fractures) fixation and rates of peri-implant fracture, rates of transfusion, and the rates of increased dependence after secondary surgery for fracture for short cephalomedullary nails (SCMN), long cephalomedullary nails (LCMN), and plate and screw devices (PSD).

METHODS

Multi center retrospective study involving data collected from 151 Level I-IV trauma centers using ICD9/10 and CPT codes for identification. 13,197 patients with peritrochanteric femur fractures between 2016 and 2021 were included in analysis.

RESULTS

We report no significant difference in peri-implant fractures in extramedullary and intramedullary devices (LCMN 50, 0.84 %; SCMN 57, 0.88 %; PSD 6, 0.74 %; p = 0.91) as well as no significant difference in the rates of discharge to home after surgical fixation of a peri-implant fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in peri-implant fracture rates between SCMN, LCMN, and PSD methods of fixation for peritrochanteric femur fractures. Therefore, longer implants do not seem to protect the femur from future peri-implant fracture when compared to shorter implants. Further analysis is needed to more fully elucidate the morbidity associated with readmission and revision of peri-implant fractures following fixation of peritrochanteric femur fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III.