Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 3/2010

01-03-2010 | Original Paper

A meta-analysis of the Gamma nail and dynamic hip screw in treating peritrochanteric fractures

Authors: Ming Liu, Zhiming Yang, Fuxing Pei, Fuguo Huang, Shiqiang Chen, Zhou Xiang

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the fixation outcome of the Gamma nail and dynamic hip screw (DHS) in treating peritrochanteric fractures. Relevant randomised controlled studies were included, and the search strategy followed the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Methodological quality was assessed and data were extracted independently. Seven studies involving 1,257 fractures were included which compared the effect of the Gamma nail and DHS. The results showed a higher rate of postoperative femoral shaft fracture with the Gamma nail compared to the DHS [relative risk (RR): 7.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.83–18.70, P < 0.0001] but no statistical differences in wound infection (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.56–1.86), mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81–1.24), re-operation (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 0.91–2.95) and walking independently after rehabilitation (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.60–1.33). It seemed that there were no obvious advantages of the Gamma nail over the DHS in treating peritrochanteric fractures.
Literature
1.
Clawson DK (1964) Trochanteric fractures treated by the sliding screw plate fixation method. J Trauma 4:737–752PubMed
2.
Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer RF (1979) Analysis of six hundred and twenty-two intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:216–221PubMed
3.
Schipper IB, Marti RK, van der Werken C (2004) Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation. Review of literature. Injury 35:142–151CrossRefPubMed
4.
Davis TR, Sher JL, Horsman A et al (1990) Intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Mechanical failure after internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:26–31PubMed
5.
Parker MJ (1992) Cutting-out of the dynamic hip screw related to its position. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:625PubMed
6.
Sadowski C, Lübbeke A, Saudan M, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P (2002) Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:372–381PubMed
7.
Zlowodzki M, Bhandari M, Brown GA (2006) Misconceptions about the mechanical advantages of intramedullary devices for treatment of proximal femur fractures. Acta Orthop 77:169–170CrossRefPubMed
8.
Park SR, Kang JS, Kim HS, Lee WH, Kim YH (1998) Treatment of intertrochanteric fracture with the Gamma AP locking nail or by a compression hip screw—a randomised prospective trial. Int Orthop 22:157–160CrossRefPubMed
9.
O’Brien PJ, Meek RN, Blachut PA, Broekhuyse HM, Sabharwal S (1995) Fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: gamma nail versus dynamic hip screw. A randomized, prospective study. Can J Surg 38:516–520PubMed
10.
Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM (2001) Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 15:394–400CrossRefPubMed
11.
Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY, Hui PW (1992) Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for peritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:345–351PubMed
12.
Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT (1991) Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:330–334PubMed
13.
Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):789–793PubMed
14.
Aune AK, Ekeland A, Odegaard B, Grøgaard B, Alho A (1994) Gamma nail vs compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures. 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 65:127–130PubMed
15.
Parker MJ, Handoll HHG (2004) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
16.
Madsen JE, Naess L, Aune AK, Alho A, Ekeland A, Strømsøe K (1998) Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the Gamma nail and compression hip screw. J Orthop Trauma 12(1):241–248CrossRefPubMed
17.
Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS (1995) Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury 26(2):615–618CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ecker ML, Joyce JJ 3rd, Kohl EJ (1975) The treatment of trochanteric hip fractures using a compressing screw. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57(1):23–27PubMed
19.
Jensen JS, Sonne-Holm S, Tøndevold E (1980) Unstable trochanteric fractures. A comparative analysis of four methods of internal fixation. Acta Orthop Scand 51(6):949–962PubMedCrossRef
20.
Jones HW, Johnston P, Parker M (2006) Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures. Int Orthop 30:69–78CrossRefPubMed
21.
Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A (2000) What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 53(3):964–972CrossRefPubMed
22.
Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO (1995) Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48(1):167–171CrossRefPubMed
23.
Metadata
Title
A meta-analysis of the Gamma nail and dynamic hip screw in treating peritrochanteric fractures
Authors
Ming Liu
Zhiming Yang
Fuxing Pei
Fuguo Huang
Shiqiang Chen
Zhou Xiang
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0783-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2010

International Orthopaedics 3/2010 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Coracoid pain test: a new clinical sign of shoulder adhesive capsulitis

Original Paper

Recent trends in spinal infections: retrospective analysis of patients treated during the past 50 years

Original Paper

Free vascularised fibular grafting in the treatment of large skeletal defects due to osteomyelitis

Original Paper

Opening wedge osteotomy of the first cuneiform for the treatment of hallux valgus

Original Paper

Long-term results of hip arthroplasty in ambulatory patients with cerebral palsy

Original Paper

Contoured plating for proximal ulna nonunion: an improved technique