• AIMS
    • The aim of this study was to investigate if there are differences in outcome between sliding hip screws (SHSs) and intramedullary nails (IMNs) with regard to fracture stability.
  • METHODS
    • We assessed data from 17,341 patients with trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures treated with SHS or IMN in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from 2013 to 2019. Primary outcome measures were reoperations for stable fractures (AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type A1) and unstable fractures (AO/OTA type A2, A3, and subtrochanteric fractures). Secondary outcome measures were reoperations for A2, A3, and subtrochanteric fractures individually, one-year mortality, quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension three-level index score), pain (visual analogue scale (VAS)), and satisfaction (VAS) for stable and unstable fractures. Hazard rate ratios (HRRs) for reoperation were calculated using Cox regression analysis with adjustments for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score.
  • RESULTS
    • Reoperation rate was lower after surgery with IMN for unstable fractures one year (HRR 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.97; p = 0.022) and three years postoperatively (HRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; p = 0.036), compared with SHS. For individual fracture types, no clinically significant differences were found. Lower one-year mortality was found for IMN compared with SHS for stable fractures (HRR 0.87; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96; p = 0.007), and unstable fractures (HRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98; p = 0.014).
  • CONCLUSION
    • This national register-based study indicates a lower reoperation rate for IMN than SHS for unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures, but not for stable fractures or individual fracture types. The choice of implant may not be decisive to the outcome of treatment for stable trochanteric fractures in terms of reoperation rate. One-year mortality rate for unstable and stable fractures was lower in patients treated with IMN. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):274-282.