Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures.

Abstract

Cephalocondylic intramedullary nails which are inserted proximally to distally (cephalocondylic) have been used for the surgical treatment of extracapsular hip fractures. To update and expand our review comparing the Gamma nail with the sliding hip screw (SHS) by comparing all cephalocondylic intramedullary nails with extramedullary implants for the surgical treatment of extracapsular hip fractures in adults. We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register, Medline, select orthopaedic journals and conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted trialists, colleagues and implant manufacturers. Date of the most recent search: June 1998. All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing cephalocondylic nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Both reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from all trialists. Wherever appropriate and possible, results were pooled. The one trial of 230 patients comparing the Kuntscher-Y nail with the SHS, reported no major difference the outcome aside from a significantly increased number of patients with leg shortening, and a tendency for poorer recovery of mobility in the Kuntscher-Y nail group. Fourteen trials comparing the Gamma nail with the SHS were included, with data available for 1977 patients. The Gamma nail was associated with an increased risk of operative and later fracture of the femur and an increased re-operation rate. There were no major differences in the incidence of wound infection, mortality or medical complications between implants. Data were inadequate to determine if there were differences for other outcomes. Two trials involving 231 patients compared the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) with the SHS. Fracture fixation complications were more common in the IMHS group: all cases of operative and later fracture of the femur and haematoma occurred in this group. Results for post-operative complications, mortality and functional outcomes were similar in the two groups. Further evidence is required before any conclusions can be drawn on the relative merits of the Kuntscher-Y nail and the SHS. Given the lower complication rate of the SHS in comparison with the Gamma nail, it appears that for trochanteric fractures the SHS is superior. Further evidence is still required to confirm this, as well as to determine if the Gamma nail, or modifications of the Gamma nail, have advantages for selected fracture types (for example, subtrochanteric fractures). From the limited evidence available, IMHS appears to have the same problems as the Gamma nail, but other theoretical advantages of the IHMS can not be ruled out.