Cementless calcar-replacement hemiarthroplasty compared with intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective, randomized study. Treatment of unstable peritrochanteric fractures in elderly patients with a compression hip screw or with the Vandeputte (VDP) endoprosthesis: a prospective randomized study.
Unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients are associated with a high rate of complications. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the results of long-stem cementless calcar-replacement hemiarthroplasty with those of treatment with a proximal femoral nail for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.
                Fifty-eight elderly patients with an AO/OTA type 31-A2 intertrochanteric fracture of the femur were randomized into two treatment groups and were followed for a minimum of two years. The twenty-nine patients in Group I were treated with a long-stem cementless calcar-replacement prosthesis, and the twenty-nine patients in Group II were treated with a proximal femoral nail. The two treatment groups were comparable with regard to demographic and injury variables.
                There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of functional outcomes, hospital stay, time to weight-bearing, or general complications. Patients treated with a proximal femoral nail had a shorter operative time, less blood loss, fewer units of blood transfused, a lower mortality rate, and lower hospital costs compared with those treated with the long-stem cementless calcar-replacement prosthesis.
                In elderly patients with an unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture, a proximal femoral nail provides superior clinical outcomes but no advantage with regard to functional outcome when compared with a long-stem cementless calcar-replacement arthroplasty.
                Therapeutic Level I. A prospective randomized study was set up, comparing a compression hip screw with the Vandeputte (VDP) endoprosthesis treatment for fresh, unstable peritrochanteric fractures, according to the Evans-Jensen and AO systems. Ninety patients, ages > or = 70 years, 47 of whom were treated with a compression hip screw and 43 with a VDP endoprosthesis, were included. All patients were being followed for 3 months. No difference between the two groups was found for operating time, wound complications, and mortality rate, but there was a higher transfusion need in VDP treatment. Severe fracture redisplacement or total collapse of the fracture occurred in 11 (26%) compression hip screw patients, two of whom had revision surgery. Only one patient needed reintervention after VDP treatment. Functional capacity of preoperative independent patients at hospital discharge did not differ for the two groups. In conclusion, the compression hip screw seemed to be an appropriate implant for most of the peritrochanteric fractures, but for very old patients with advanced osteoporosis, with a complex, unstable peritrochanteric fracture, and who are eligible for early mobilization, primary cemented endoprosthesis might be the best treatment.
There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to determine whether replacement arthroplasty has any advantage over internal fixation for extracapsular hip fractures. Further larger well-designed randomised trials comparing arthroplasty versus internal fixation for the treatment of unstable fractures are required.