Sliding hip screw vs intramedullary nail for AO/OTA31A1-A3: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dynamic hip screws versus cephalocondylic intramedullary nails for unstable extracapsular hip fractures in 2021: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

“…The authors investigated each subtype separately and reported difficulty in obtaining data for each one and therefore could not complete a meta-analysis. 18 Our review therefore adds to the existing literature by providing an up-to-date review that directly compares DHS and IMN procedures for all of A1, A2 and A3 extracapsular fractures collectively and specifically addresses peri-operative as well as post-operative outcomes.…”

“…14 , 15 These guidelines however are still not supported by clinical studies as many recent meta-analyses have demonstrated no notable difference or advantage to choosing in comparison to IMN. 16 , 17 , 18 …”

Multi-stage treatment for malunion and avascular necrosis of the femoral head following reverse oblique pertrochanteric fracture: A case report and literature review

“…This technique has been proved to be a highly successful method for fixation of stable inter-trochanteric fractures. However, since AO/OTA 31-A3 fractures are biomechanically unstable by nature [12] , a DHS plate, especially when applied without an additional trochanteric stabilizing plate (TSP), is commonly regarded as an inappropriate method in the treatment of such injuries [12] , [36] , even if literature sources are not explicit [37] . Treating highly instable intertrochanteric fractures with a DHS plate may, in particular, lead to a loss of reduction, non-union, and/or malunion with a varus deformity of the femoral neck, marked shortening of the affected limb or a screw cutout [38] .…”

Trauma

“…These investigators from Kolding (Denmark) conducted a systematic review with a consequent meta-analysis evaluating the best treatment for AO/OTA 31A1-A3 trochanteric fractures, specifically when comparing the SHS to the IMN. 5 For this review outcomes used for comparison are major complications (in total, as well as nonunion and infection specifically), mortality rates, functional outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, where face-to-face review was required, the median time to clinic from presentation was 11 days, and the mean time was 12.4 days.…”