Format

Send to

Choose Destination
  • The following term was ignored: -
  • See the search details.
Injury. 2016 Mar;47(3):586-94. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.01.001. Epub 2016 Jan 13.

Lacking evidence for performance of implants used for proximal femoral fractures - A systematic review.

Author information

1
Clinical Orthopaedic Research Hvidovre, Department of Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Kettegaard Alle 30, DK-2650 Hvidovre, Denmark. Electronic address: rienyholm@gmail.com.
2
Clinical Orthopaedic Research Hvidovre, Department of Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Kettegaard Alle 30, DK-2650 Hvidovre, Denmark.
3
Orthopedic Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, GRJ 1126, Boston, MA, United States.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Evaluation of the long-term performance of implants used in trauma surgery relies on post-marked clinical studies since no registry based implant assessment exists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the evidence of performance of implants currently used for treating proximal femoral fractures (PFF) in Denmark.

METHOD:

PubMed was searched for clinical studies on primary PFF with follow-up ≥12 months, reporting implant-related failure and evaluating one of following: DHS, CHS, HipLoc, Gamma3, IMHS, InterTan, PFN, PFNA or PTN.

LIMITS:

English language and publication date after 1st of January 1990.

RESULTS:

All studies were evidence level II or III. 30 publications for SHS were found: 13 of CHS, 15 of DHS and 2 of HipLoc. In total CHS was evaluated in 1110 patients (900 prospectively), DHS in 2486 (567 prospectively) and HipLoc in 251 (all prospectively). Fifty-four publications for nails were found: 13 of Gamma3, 7 of IMHS, 5 of InterTan, 10 of PFN, 24 of PFNA and 0 of PTN. In total Gamma3 was evaluated in 1088 patients (829 prospectively), IMHS in 1543 (210 prospectively), InterTan in 595 (585 prospectively), PFN in 716 (557 prospectively), PFNA in 1762 (1018 prospectively) and PTN in 0.

CONCLUSIONS:

The clinical evidence behind the current implants used for proximal femoral fractures is weak considering the number of implants used worldwide. Sporadic evaluation is not sufficient to identify long term problems. A systematic post market surveillance of implants used for fracture treatment, preferable by a national register, is necessary in the future.

KEYWORDS:

Hip fracture; Implant failure; Implant survival; Proximal femoral fracture; Reoperation; Trochanteric fracture

PMID:
26803696
DOI:
10.1016/j.injury.2016.01.001
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center