Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

In Lisfranc injuries the stability of the tarsometatarsal joints guides the treatment of the injury. Determining the stability, especially in the subtle Lisfranc injuries, can be challenging. The purpose of this study was to identify incidence, mechanisms of injury and predictors for instability in Lisfranc injuries. Methods:Eighty-four Lisfranc injuries presenting at Oslo University Hospital between September 2014 and August 2015 were included. The diagnosis was based on radiologically verified injuries to the tarsometatarsal joints. Associations between radiographic findings and stability were examined. Results:The incidence of Lisfranc injuries was 14/100,000 person-years, and only 31% were high-energy injuries. The incidence of unstable injuries was 6/100,000 person-years, and these were more common in women than men (P=.016).Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints increased the risk of instability (P=.007). The height of the second tarsometatarsal joint was less in the unstable injuries than in the stable injuries (P=.036). Conclusion:The incidence of Lisfranc injuries in the present study is higher than previously published. The most common mechanism of injury is low-energy trauma.Intraarticular fractures in the two lateral tarsometatarsal joints, female gender and shorter second tarsometatarsal joint height increase the risk of an unstable injury.

Background: Unstable Lisfranc injuries are best treated with anatomic reduction and stable fixation. There are controversies regarding which type of stabilization is best. In the present study, we compared primary arthrodesis of the first tarsometatarsal (TMT) joint to temporary bridge plating in unstable Lisfranc injuries. Methods: Forty-eight patients with Lisfranc injuries were included and followed for 2 years. Twenty-four patients were randomized to primary arthrodesis (PA) of the medial 3 TMT joints, whereas 24 patients were randomized to temporary bridge plate (BP) over the first TMT joint and primary arthrodesis of the second and third TMT joints. The main outcome parameter was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot scale and the secondary outcome parameters were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Computed tomography (CT) scans pre- and postoperatively were obtained. Radiographs were obtained at follow-ups. Pedobarographic examination was performed at the 2-year follow-up. Twenty-two of 24 patients in the PA and 23/24 in the BP group completed the 2-year follow-up. Results: The mean AOFAS midfoot score 2 years postoperatively was 89 (SD 9) in the PA group and 85 (SD 15) in the BP group ( P = .32). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to SF-36 or VAS pain scores. The alignment of the first metatarsal was better in the BP group than in the PA group measured by the anteroposterior Meary angle ( P = .04). The PA group had a reduced peak pressure under the fifth metatarsal ( P = .047). In the BP group, 11/24 patients had radiologic signs of osteoarthritis in the first TMT joint. Conclusion: Both treatment groups had good outcome scores. The first metatarsal was better aligned in the BP group; however, there was a high incidence of radiographic osteoarthritis in this group. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level I, prospective randomized controlled study.