Introduction Both the DHS and the PFNA are common and well-studied treatment options for stable trochanteric fractures. The aim of the current study was to compare the implant failure rates of... Show moreIntroduction Both the DHS and the PFNA are common and well-studied treatment options for stable trochanteric fractures. The aim of the current study was to compare the implant failure rates of these two implants in 31A1 type trochanteric femoral fractures. Materials and methods A single-centre observational cohort study was conducted in the Hip Fracture Unit of a multicentre level 1 trauma teaching hospital between December 2016 and October 2018. Patients with an AO/OTA type 31A1 fracture were included. Pathological fractures, bilateral fractures, high-energy traumas and patients younger than 18 years of age were excluded. Surgery was performed using either a DHS or PFNA. Both were used routinely for stable trochanteric fractures, and allocation was decided by the surgeon performing the operation. The primary outcome of this study was the implant failure rate in the first postoperative year. Secondary outcomes included the reoperation rate, functional recovery, pain and morphine use. Results Data were available from 126 patients treated with a DHS (n = 32, 25.4%) or PFNA (n = 95, 74.6%). Minor differences were observed in the patient characteristics including the prevalence of cognitive impairment (18.8% vs 40.2%; P = 0.028), prefracture independence in activities of daily living (87.1% vs 67.4%; P = 0.034) and prefracture mobility (independently without aides: 61.3% vs 40.4%; P = 0.033). Fractures treated with a DHS showed 25% implant failures, compared to 1.1% for fractures treated with a PFNA (P = 0.004). No differences were observed in any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Significantly more implant failures were observed for the DHS compared the PFNA within 1 year after surgery. Despite the fact that this did not result in differences in revision surgery, we conclude that the PFNA, considering the minimal number of implant-related fractures is a viable implant for A1 type trochanteric fractures. Show less
Background The Dynamic Locking Blade Plate (DLBP) was recently introduced for fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) and has been well received. Although the results of this implant in... Show moreBackground The Dynamic Locking Blade Plate (DLBP) was recently introduced for fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) and has been well received. Although the results of this implant in young patients are promising, the DLBP has not yet been compared to a standard device such as the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS). The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcome and costs of displaced FNF treated with internal fixation by means of either the DLBP or the DHS in patients up to 65 years of age. We hypothesize that the DLBP is superior compared to the DHS in terms of revision surgery rate, union rate, incidence of avascular necrosis and implant related failure. Methods The DEFENDD (DisplacEd Femoral Neck fractures Dlbp versus Dhs) trial is a multicentre randomized controlled trial that will include 266 patients of 18-65 years with a displaced FNF. Patients will be randomized to receive either a DLBP or a DHS with a 1:1 allocation using a random block size, stratified for centre. Clinical follow up will last 1 year and questionnaires will be obtained up to 2 years. The main outcome parameter is the incidence of revision surgery within 1 year, due to either non-union, avascular necrosis (AVN) or cut out of the implant. Secondary study parameters are the incidence of avascular necrosis, non-union, (implant related) complications, functional outcome, elective removal of the implant and health-related quality of life and costs. Discussion The outcome of the DEFENDD trial will provide high-level evidence of which implant is favourable for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in young patients (<= 65 years). Show less
