Outcomes of Hemiarthroplasty Versus Cephalo-medullary Fixation to Treat Unstable Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures

Fracture of Femur Clinical Trial

Official title:

Functional Outcomes of Hemiarthroplasty Versus Cephalo-medullary Fixation in the Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05134805
• Other study ID #: FMASU M D 308 2018
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: October 1, 2018
• Est. completion date: November 15, 2021

Study information

• Verified date: November 2021
• Source: Ain Shams University
• Contact: Islam M Soliman, Master
• Phone: 2001007980973
• Email: islam.soliman.0089[@]gmail.com
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Comparing functional outcomes of hemiarthroplasty (prosthetic joint) versus cephalo-medullary fixation ( proximal femoral intramedullary nail) in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures (proximal femur fractures) in elderly people above 60 years old.

Description:

The intertrochanteric femoral fractures incidence rate has increased through the last years because of increasing life expectancy, leading to more morbidity and mortality rates . Unstable fracture pattern occurs due to age increase and bone quality decrease. Unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures (ITFF) are considered about 40-45% of hip fractures in elderly people . Of note, 55% of these fractures had unstable patterns . The main objective of treatment is to restore the patients to their preoperative daily activities and medical conditions .

Therefore, the surgical treatment aims to return the patient to his pre-fracture level of activity to ensure that the patient moves as soon as possible to prevent complications due to immobility which can lead to death.

In an unstable fracture pattern which is characterized by decreased bone quality, it is of great importance to providing efficient and proper treatment . A lot of treatment modalities had been used in the treatment of this fracture pattern such as PFN, unipolar hemiarthroplasty, BHA, and dynamic hip screw (DHS) . On the other hand, it is difficult to perform stable fixation owing to osteoporotic bone quality.

The treatment aims to restore the patient's ambulation and decrease medical complications and technical failure. By using either BHA or PFN methods, patients can return to pre-injury levels decreasing complications induced by prolonged immobilization or implant failure .

The primary objective of the current study is to compare functional outcomes of unstable ITFF managed by PFN or BHA among cases with ages more than 60 years old. The second main objective is to compare intraoperative and postoperative in both groups.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 30
• Est. completion date: November 15, 2021
• Est. primary completion date: November 15, 2021
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 60 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patient over 60 years old.

• Unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures

Exclusion Criteria:

• patient with age less than 60 years old

• Hip osteoarthritis

• Pathological fractures

• Bilateral fractures

• Metabolic bone disease

• Multiple trauma

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Femoral Fractures
• Fracture of Femur
• Fractures, Bone

Intervention

Procedure:
• Bipolar hemiarthroplasty , proximal femoral nail
Removal of head of femur , greater trochanter , and lesser trochanter and use bioplar hemiarthroplasty (BHA). Intra-medullary fixation of intertrchanteric femoral fracture by proximal femoral nail (PFN) Fixation of the fracture by using intramedullary nail(proximal femoral nail).

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Egypt	Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams university	Cairo	Abbasia

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Ain Shams University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Egypt, 

References & Publications (22)

Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Eriksson K, Söderqvist A, Ponzer S, Tidermark J. A randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Feb;89(2):160-5. — View Citation

Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, Peicha G, Grechenig W, Szyszkowitz R. The proximal femoral nail (PFN)--a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003 Feb;74(1):53-8. — View Citation

Emami M, Manafi A, Hashemi B, Nemati A, Safari S. Comparison of intertrochanteric fracture fixation with dynamic hip screw and bipolar hemiarthroplasty techniques. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013 Sep;1(1):14-7. Epub 2013 Sep 15. — View Citation

Gaumetou E, Zilber S, Hernigou P. Non-simultaneous bilateral hip fracture: epidemiologic study of 241 hip fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Feb;97(1):22-7. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2010.07.011. Epub 2011 Jan 15. — View Citation

Görmeli G, Korkmaz MF, Görmeli CA, Adanas C, Karatas T, Simsek SA. Comparison of femur intertrochanteric fracture fixation with hemiarthroplasty and proximal femoral nail systems. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2015 Dec;21(6):503-8. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2015.96166. — View Citation

Gupta KL. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME WITH PFNA AND HEMIARTHROPLASTY FOR SENILE INTERTROCHANTERIC FRACTURES MANAGEMENT: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CLINICAL STUDY. International Journal of Medical and Biomedical Studies (IJMBS). 2020;4(3):205-8.

Haentjens P, Lamraski G. Endoprosthetic replacement of unstable, comminuted intertrochanteric fracture of the femur in the elderly, osteoporotic patient: a review. Disabil Rehabil. 2005 Sep 30-Oct 15;27(18-19):1167-80. Review. — View Citation

Han SK, Lee BY, Kim YS, Choi NY. Usefulness of multi-detector CT in Boyd-Griffin type 2 intertrochanteric fractures with clinical correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 2010 Jun;39(6):543-9. doi: 10.1007/s00256-009-0795-6. Epub 2009 Sep 8. — View Citation

Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737-55. — View Citation

Jolly A, Bansal R, More AR, Pagadala MB. Comparison of complications and functional results of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur treated with proximal femur nails and cemented hemiarthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019 Mar-Apr;10(2):296-301. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.09.015. Epub 2017 Sep 29. Review. — View Citation

Kesmezacar H, Ogüt T, Bilgili MG, Gökay S, Tenekecioglu Y. [Treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures in elderly patients: internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2005;39(4):287-94. Turkish. — View Citation

Kim SY, Kim YG, Hwang JK. Cementless calcar-replacement hemiarthroplasty compared with intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Oct;87(10):2186-92. — View Citation

Kokoroghiannis C, Aktselis I, Deligeorgis A, Fragkomichalos E, Papadimas D, Pappadas I. Evolving concepts of stability and intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures--a review. Injury. 2012 Jun;43(6):686-93. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.031. Epub 2011 Jul 14. Review. — View Citation

Li J, Chen JK, Zhou K, Shen B, Ni XM, Chen L. [Application of dynamic hip screw with modified reamer in intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2011 May;24(5):362-5. Chinese. — View Citation

Lindskog DM, Baumgaertner MR. Unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures in the elderly. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004 May-Jun;12(3):179-90. Review. — View Citation

Luo X, He S, Zeng D, Lin L, Li Q. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures: Case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;38:37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.04.027. Epub 2017 Jul 11. — View Citation

Maru N, Rasik D, Parag T. Unstable intertrochanteric fractures in high risk elderly patients treated with primary bipolar hemiarthroplasty: retrospective case series. Int J Orthop. 2019;5:616-9.

Papasimos S, Koutsojannis CM, Panagopoulos A, Megas P, Lambiris E. A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005 Sep;125(7):462-8. — View Citation

Röder F, Schwab M, Aleker T, Mörike K, Thon KP, Klotz U. Proximal femur fracture in older patients--rehabilitation and clinical outcome. Age Ageing. 2003 Jan;32(1):74-80. — View Citation

Setiobudi T, Ng YH, Lim CT, Liang S, Lee K, Das De S. Clinical outcome following treatment of stable and unstable intertrochanteric fractures with dynamic hip screw. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2011 Nov;40(11):482-7. — View Citation

Yang YH, Wang YR, Jiang SD, Jiang LS. Proximal femoral nail antirotation and third-generation Gamma nail: which is a better device for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures? Singapore Med J. 2013 Aug;54(8):446-50. — View Citation

Zhou S, Liu J, Zhen P, Shen W, Chang Y, Zhang H, Zhu Q, Li X. Proximal femoral nail anti-rotation versus cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty for unstable femoral intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Oct 29;20(1):500. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2793-8. — View Citation

* Note: There are 22 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	-Harris Hip Score(HHS)	- Harris Hip Score(HHS) : scale from 70 to 100 (70-90) . The higher the HHS, the less dysfunction. A total score of <70 is considered a poor result; 70-80 is considered fair, 80-90 is good, and 90-100 is an excellent result (1). No normative values are available.	First 3 months post-operative
Primary	-Mobility Score (MS)	- Mobility score(MS) : scale from 0 to 3 (0-3) 0 being good mobility and 3 being severely impaired mobility. The higher mobility score, the higher mobility impairment.	First 3 months post-operative
Secondary	-Harris Hip Score(HHS)	- Harris hip score (HHS): scale from 70 to 100 (70-100). The higher the HHS, the less dysfunction. A total score of <70 is considered a poor result; 70-80 is considered fair, 80-90 is good, and 90-100 is an excellent result (1). No normative values are available.	1 year follow up
Secondary	Mobility Score (MS)	- Mobility score(MS) : scale from 0 to 3 (0-3) 0 being good mobility and 3 being severely impaired mobility. The higher mobility score, the higher mobility impairment.	1 year follow up