Hip Fracture Management Using External Fixation—A Systematic Review

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Patients with significant comorbidities have high general anaesthetic risks and are often thought to be undesirable candidates for general anaesthesia and, therefore, surgery. External fixation uses local or regional anaesthesia, and allows patients with significant comorbidities to avoid the risks of general anaesthesia. It has been described to be successful in the management of high-risk patients with intertrochanteric fractures. However, published data have been derived from small case series, and no published literature has attempted to analyse them in totality. This review aims to pool together these case series, and to evaluate the outcomes and complications of external fixation when performed in high-risk patients with intertrochanteric fractures. The review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRSIMA) guidelines. All studies that reported the outcomes of external fixation for intertrochanteric fractures of high-risk patients were included. A total of 13 publications, involving 687 patients, were included in the review. All the studies reported postoperative radiological reduction and complete fracture healing with reduction of limb length discrepancy. One study using parallel placement of proximal fixation screws showed shorter operative duration as compared to convergent placement. Another study mentioned that there was no significant difference in mortality rates between patients with stable fractures and those with unstable fractures who underwent external fixation. All the studies reported a decrease in postoperative immobility, reduction in pain and improvement in clinical outcome hip scores. External fixation is promising and useful especially in the management of high-risk patients with intertrochanteric fractures. The procedure can help with radiological reduction of the fracture, reduction of limb length discrepancy, reduction of operative duration, decrease in postoperative immobility, reduction in pain and improvement in clinical outcome hip scores. The procedure is versatile and seems to be able to accommodate both stable and unstable fractures. However, unstable fractures may be associated with greater postoperative morbidity, and it may be worthwhile to prognosticate based on the stability of the patients' fracture for better risk-benefit analysis preoperatively. Shorter operative times can also be achieved through parallel proximal pin placement, without impact on mortality or morbidity.