Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Functional Outcome of Treatment after Failed Intertrochanteric Fracture Fixation

S Gnanasekaran, Muthu K Vaiyapuri, Amudha G Selvaraj, Vijaya A Sivaji, Rex Chandrabose

Keywords : Dynamic hip screw and bone grafting, Exchange nailing and bone grafting, Hemiarthroplasty, Intertrochanteric fracture, Modified Harris Hip, Total hip replacement score, Visual analog scale score

Citation Information : Gnanasekaran S, Vaiyapuri MK, Selvaraj AG, Sivaji VA, Chandrabose R. Functional Outcome of Treatment after Failed Intertrochanteric Fracture Fixation. 2023; 5 (2):79-85.

DOI: 10.5005/jojs-10079-1112

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-07-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Background: Failed intertrochanteric (IT) fractures are the most common fractures seen in an elderly population. It causes more morbidity and mortality in old people. Hence fixation of failed IT fractures is necessary. The aim of our study is to assess the functional outcome of failed IT fracture fixation like a dynamic hip screw and bone grafting, total hip replacement (THR), hemiarthroplasty, and exchange nailing and bone grafting. Materials and methods: It is a prospective study done between June 2020 and May 2022 in Rex Ortho Hospital. Our study consists of 57 patients who had IT fractures primarily fixed with anyone of the following—like proximal femoral nailing (PFN) and dynamic hip screw fixation, and then failed due to various reasons like unstable fracture pattern, poor reduction techniques, implant failure, or loosening. Patient functional outcomes were assessed by Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), and the pain was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) score at regular intervals preoperatively (pre-op), 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Results: Our study population comprised 27 males and 30 females with failed IT fractures. The average follow-up was 12–24 months. Out of 57 patients, 18 had cemented THR, 17 had a dynamic hip screw and bone grafting, 13 had cemented hemiarthroplasty, and nine patients had exchange nailing and bone grafting. At the end of 12 months, among 11 patients with cemented THR patients, three (27.2%) had excellent outcomes and eight (72.7%) had good outcomes. Among eight patients with dental bone graft (DHS) and bone grafting, six (75%) had good outcomes and two (25%) had fair outcomes. Among seven patients with cemented hemiarthroplasty, six (85.7%) had good outcomes and one (14.2%) had a fair outcome. Among nine patients with exchange nailing and bone grafting, two had good outcomes, and five had poor outcomes. Out of refixation, 25 out of 26 nonunions were healed. One nonunion again went for nonunion, which was a case of exchange nailing and bone grafting, and had revision cemented hemiarthroplasty. All patients are free of pain. Two patients had hyponatremia postoperatively (post-op) and three patients had post-op pain due to hardware impingement, but they were ambulatory. One had a superficial wound infection and one had a greater trochanter (GT) fracture intraoperatively. Conclusion: In the selected group of patients who had refixation with bone grafting in the young population, all had excellent outcomes. The elderly who underwent THR had an excellent outcome, and patients with bipolar hemiarthroplasty scored less. Thus, we recommended head-conserving surgery where ever possible, and if not THR, and last option being bipolar hemiarthroplasty.

  1. Karampinas PK, Kollias G, Vlamis J, et al. Salvage of failed hip osteosynthesis for fractures with modular hip prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015;25(6):1039–1045. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-015-1622-5
  2. Dziadosz D. Considerations with failed intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2015;29(Suppl 4):S17–S21. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000289
  3. Leer-Salvesen S, Engesæter LB, Dybvik E, et al. Does time from fracture to surgery affect mortality and intraoperative medical complications for hip fracture patients? An observational study of 73 557 patients reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(9):1129–1137. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B9.BJJ-2019-0295.R1
  4. Jain RK, Verma A, Jain A, et al. Factors determining failure of intertrochanteric fracture fixation with a dynamic hip screw: a retrospective analysis. Int J Res Orthop 2018;4(5):720. DOI: Int J Res Orthop 20183422
  5. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, et al. Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19(4):229–233. DOI: 10.1097/
  6. Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Speitling A, et al. 3066 consecutive Gamma Nails. 12 years experience at a single centre. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:133. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-133
  7. Haentjens P, Casteleyn PP, Opdecam P. Hip arthroplasty for failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures in the elderly patient. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1994;113(4):222–227. DOI: 10.1007/BF00441837
  8. Matre K, Havelin LI, Gjertsen JE, et al. Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Injury 2013;44(6):735–742. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.010
  9. Ovesen O, Andersen M, Poulsen T, et al. The trochanteric gamma nail versus the dynamic hip screw: a prospective randomized study. One-year follow-up of 146 intertrochanteric fractures. HIP Int 2006;16(4):293–298. DOI: 10.1177/112070000601600409
  10. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(4):700–707. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00517
  11. Bercik M, Miller A, Muffly M, et al. Conversion total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 2012;27(8):117–121.
  12. McKinley JC, Robinson CM. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures with total hip arthroplasty: comparison of primary arthroplasty with early salvage arthroplasty after failed internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84(11):2010–2015. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200211000-00016
  13. Haidukewych GJ, Berry DJ. Hip arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85(5):899–904. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00019
  14. Xu Q, Lai J, Zhang F, et al. Poor outcomes for osteoporotic patients undergoing conversion total hip arthroplasty following prior failed dynamic hip screw fixation: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. J Int Med Res 2019;47(4):1544–1554. DOI: 10.1177/0300060518823410
  15. Koyuncu Ş, Altay T, Kayalı C, et al. Mechanical failures after fixation with proximal femoral nail and risk factors. Clin Interv Aging 2015;10:1959–1965. DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S96852
  16. Luthringer TA, Elbuluk AM, Behery OA, et al. Salvage of failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: clinical and functional outcomes of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2018;4(3):383–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2018.06.002
  17. Kim JW, Kim TY, Ha YC, et al. Outcome of intertrochanteric fractures treated by intramedullary nail with two integrated lag screws: a study in Asian population. Indian J Orthop 2015;49(4):436–441. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.159647
  18. Zhong G, Teng L, Li HB, et al. Surgical treatment of internal fixation failure of femoral peritrochanteric fracture. Orthop Surg 2021;13(6):1739–1747. DOI: 10.1111/os.13110
  19. Liu L, Sun Y, Wang L, et al. Total hip arthroplasty for intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure. Eur J Med Res 2019;24(1):39. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-019-0398-1
  20. Taheriazam A, Saeidinia A. Salvage of failed dynamic hip screw fixation of intertrochanteric fractures. Orthop Res Rev 2019;11:93–98. DOI: 10.2147/ORR.S215240
  21. Tyllianakis M, Panagopoulos A, Papadopoulos A, et al. Treatment of extracapsular hip fractures with the proximal femoral nail (PFN): long term results in 45 patients. Acta Orthop Belg 2004;70(5):444–454. PMID: 15587033.
  22. Papasimos S, Koutsojannis CM, Panagopoulos A, et al. A randomized comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005;125(7):462–468. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-005-0021-5
  23. Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, et al. 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;74(1):53–58. DOI: 10.1080/00016470310013662
  24. Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, Van der Werken C. The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 1999;30(5):327–332. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(99)00091-1
  25. Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M Jr, Paccola CA. Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004;124(1):31–37. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-003-0586-9
  26. Babu M, Anand V, Thanigai S. Results of DHS and bone grafting in primary nonunion of intertrochanteric patients in a rural setup. Int J Orthop Sci 2017;3(4a):35–37. DOI: 10.22271/ortho.2017.v3.i4a.08
  27. Liu P, Jin D, Zhang C, et al. Revision surgery due to failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fracture: current state-of-the-art. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21(1):573. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03593-8
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.