Abstract
Early and safe mobilization remains the mainstay of treatment for the intertrochanteric fractures. Many implants have been used but the intramedullary implants seem to provide maximum stability in unstable fractures. The aim of this study was to compare two intramedullary devices which have different philosophy and modes of action.
Between 01.07.2005 to 30.06.2007, 110 patients with trochanteric fractures treated with the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS, Smith & Nephew) nail and 105 with the ENDOVIS (Citieffe) nail. The data recorded were the fracture’s type, preoperative hemoglobin level, pre-fracture walking ability. Postoperatively were recorded the operative time, the level of hemoglobin on the first day, mobility status, complications and 12 months mortality rate. The results were comparable regarding blood loss, operative time, and mortality rate. However, the rehabilitation and functional outcome were superior in the IMHS group. This probably was attributed to the higher number of complications of the ENDOVIS nail.
IMHS is a valuable tool for the treatment of stable intertrochanteric fractures, offering also excellent results in the management of reverse obliquity, comminuted fractures and those with a subtrochanteric extension. Further investigations are necessary to prove which the ideal intramedullary implant is. However, it seems that devices combining the principles of the sliding hip screw with those of an intramedullary nail present safe and accurate fixation, fewer mechanical failures and exceptional functional outcomes
Correspondence should be addressed to Anastasia C. Tilentzoglou MD, General Secretary of the Board of Directors of HAOST, 20 A. Fleming Str. (N.Filothei), Gr. 15123 Maroussi, Athens Greece. E-mail: info@eexot.gr
