Intertrochanteric fractures are common hip fractures seen in the elderly that occur between the greater and lesser trochanters. There is no consensus on the best treatment, but options include intramedullary nails, sliding hip screws with side plates, and hemiarthroplasty in some cases. While both operative and non-operative treatments can be used, surgery typically leads to better outcomes through earlier mobilization and weight bearing. Newer intramedullary nails may provide faster recovery of walking ability compared to sliding hip screws, though implant selection depends on the fracture pattern and stability.

1. Management of
Intertrochanteric Fracture
Maj Dr Dipendra Maharjan

2. Introduction
• Extracapsular fractures of the proximal femur involving
the area between the greater and lesser trochanter.
• 50% of all fractures of the proximal femur
• One of the most common fracture in elderly
• High energy trauma in younger patients
• Carries risk with prolonged immobilization

3. • Mechanism of injury
• Clinical presentation
– Non ambulatory
– Limb is shortened, externally rotated and flexed at hip joint
– Bruises present at hip joint
• Radiographic evaluation
– AP view and cross table lateral view
– MRI
• Currently the imaging study of choice in delineating non displaced or
occult fractures that are not apparent on plain radiographs
– CT scan and bone scans are reserved

4. Classification

5. • Evans classification
– Based on prereduction and post reduction
stability
– Stable fracture patterns
• Posteromedical cortex remains intact or has minimal
communition
– Unstable fracture patterns
• Greater communition of the posteromedical cortex

6. Treatment
• Stable internal fixation, early mobilization and
full weight bearing ambulation.
• Good quality of fixation depends upon
– Bone quality
– Fracture pattern
– Fracture reduction
– Implant choice
– Implant placement

7. • Elderly hip fracture patients are at risk for
– increased rate of mortality
– inability to return to prior living circumstances
– the need for an increased level of care and
supervision
– decreased quality of life
– decreased level of mobility and ambulation
– secondary osteoporotic fractures, including a
second or contralateral side hip fracture.

8. • Available modalities for treatment
– Non operative
– Operative
• Compression screw with side plate
• Gottfried plate (percutaneous compression plate)
• Trochanteric stabilizing plate
• Intramedullary Nail
– Gamma Nail
– Intramedullary hip screw
• 95 degree Angle blade plate
– Dynamic compression screw
– Condylar blade plate
• Self dynamisable internal fixator
• External fixator
• Replacement arthroplasty

9. • Two types of implant are used in the treatment of
patients with intertrochanteric hip fracture:
– an SHS with a side plate, and
– an intramedullary (IM) nail with an SHS component.
• The IM component helps to buttress against fracture
collapse and medialization of the distal fracture
fragment, particularly in unstable (ie, reverse obliquity)
intertrochanteric fractures.
• the percutaneous insertion of the IM device may
reduce the amount of surgical trauma.

10. • In 1989, Hornby et al performed
– a randomized prospective study comparing nonsurgical
treatment (ie, traction) with a sliding hip screw (SHS) in 106
patients with intertrochanteric hip fracture.
– Complications were low in both groups, with no significant
difference in 6-month mortality, pain, leg swelling, or pressure
sores.
– Anatomic reduction was achieved more commonly with surgical
treatment, and these patients had shorter hospital stays.
– Patients treated with traction had greater loss of independence
at 6-month follow-up.
– recommended surgical treatment for medically stable patients.

11. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Cal- vert PT: Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur: A randomised prospective
comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:330-334.
• In 1991, Bridle et al reported on 100 patients with 41 stable
intertrochanteric fractures who were randomized to receive either a
Gamma nail (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) or a dynamic hip screw (DHS).
– In this level I study, no differences were demonstrated in surgical time, blood
loss, wound complications, length of stay, or patient mobility at a minimum
follow-up of 6 months.
– Loss of reduction (lag screw, nail cutout) was similar between the two groups
of the patients treated with the Gamma nail, four experienced femoral shaft
fracture requiring revision surgery.
– For both groups, union occurred at an average of 6 months.
• Radford et al and Saudan et al found nearly identical results in their level I
studies of 200 and 206 patients, respectively, who were ran- domized to
receive either an IM nail or SHS fixation.

12. Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court- Brown CM, McQueen MM: Prospec- tive randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail
versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15:394-400.
• In 2001, Adams et al
– a prospective, randomized controlled trial assessing
IM nailing versus a DHS and side plate in 400 patients.
– Revision rates, femoral shaft fractures, and lag screw
cutout were slightly higher in patients treated with IM
nailing but did not differ significantly from the cohort
treated with a DHS.
– There was no difference in early or 1-year functional
outcomes.

13. • A 2003 retrospective level III study
– reviewed a population database to compare mortality rates in patients
with severe comorbidities who were treated either nonsurgically or
surgically for intertrochanteric hip fracture.
– The 30-day mortality rate was lower in patients treated surgically.
– However, when the authors compared surgical fixation with
nonsurgical treatment with early mobilization (ie, out of bed to chair),
they found no significant difference in mortality rate.
• recommend early mobilization out of bed to chair in patients with
nonsurgically managed hip fracture when it is feasible.

14. • Pajarinen et al
– Recovery of ambulation was a focus of the study who compared a
DHS with a proximal femoral nail (PFN) (Synthes, Oberdorf,
Switzerland) in 108 patients.
– Although the immediate postoperative outcomes did not differ
between the two groups, patients treated with IM devices had a
significantly faster return to preoperative ambulation levels (P = 0.04).
– Fracture healing was similar between the two groups at 4 months,
with two patients in each group requiring revision.
• Concluded that the PFN provided faster restoration of walking
ability than did the DHS in patients with unstable fracture patterns.

15. • Sadowski et al
– reported the results of 39 unstable reverse obliquity
intertrochanteric fractures managed with either an IM device or
a fixed-angle screw-plate device (Dynamic Condylar Screw;
Synthes).
– Clinical and radiographic follow-up demonstrated a shorter
mean surgical time for patients treated with IM nailing and a
significantly higher rate of implant failure and nonunion in the
group treated with the Dynamic Condylar Screw (P = 0.008 and
P = 0.007, respectively).
– Excluding patients with nonunion or failure, there was no
significant difference in postoperative walking ability or level of
independence.

16. • In 2005, Papasimos et al
– performed a randomized, prospective study of 120
patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures
comparing an SHS, Gamma nail, and PFN.
– Mean blood loss, length of hospital stay, screw cutout, and
fracture reduction were not statistically different between
the three groups.
– Patients treated with PFN had a significantly longer
surgical time (P < 0.05), which the investigators suggested
was due to lack of surgeon experience with that device.

17. • Intramedullary Nails for extracapuslar hip fractures
– Gamma nail vs PFN
– ACE trochanteric nail and gamma nail
– Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) nail vs gamma nail
– Gliding nail vs. gamma nail
– Russell taylor recon nail vs gamma nail
– PFNA nail vs Targon PF nail
– Dynamically vs staticall y locked intramedullary hip screw
– Sliding vs non sliding gamma nail
– Long vs standard PFNA nails
• Concluded that limited evidence to determine whether there are
important differences in outcome between different designs of
intramedullary nails used in treating extracapsular hip fractures
Cochrane Database

18. • Cochrane database
– concluded that side plates are superior to
intramedullary nails in the treatment of
intertrochanteric femoral fractures.
– is meta-analysis, however, included older versions of
cephalomedullary nails, which had problems with
fracture at the distal tip of the nail.
– Although this complication does still occur, it is much
less frequent with newer nail designs.

19. InterTAN nail vs IM nail or SHS
• A newer intramedullary device (InterTAN) uses two integrated
proximal interlocking screws that allow linear intraoperative
compression.
• The nail’s geometry and integrated proximal interlocking at least
theoretically improve rotational stability in the proximal segment.

20. Concluded that both screw proximal femoral nails and helical proximal femoral nail are
suitable for intertrochanteric fractures but that helical proximal femoral nails offer
some advantage over functionality and complication rates

21. • Self dynamisable internal fixator
– recommend selfdynamisable
internal fixator as a safe
extramedullary implant for
fixation.
– It provides stable biological
fixation of proximal femoral
fractures, further adding
impaction of the fragments along
each axis (the axis of the femoral
neck and the axis of the femoral
shaft) whenever it is necessary to
achieve the union

22. ORIF Vs Arthroplasty
• Prosthetic hip replacement generally has not been
considered a primary treatment option for
intertrochanteric fractures.
• In the patient with preexisting symptomatic
degenerative arthritis, primary prosthetic replacement
may be the best option.
• considered for intertrochanteric fractures with extreme
comminution in severely osteoporotic bone in which
internal fixation methods are unlikely to be successful.

23. • In 2005, Kim et al
– performed a prospective randomized (level I) study of
unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients in
which long-stem cementless calcar-replacement hemi-
arthroplasty was compared with a PFN.
– No significant differences were found between the two
groups in terms of functional outcomes, hospital stay, time
to weight bearing, and risk of complications.
– However, surgical time (P < 0.001), blood loss (P < 0.001),
need for blood transfusions (P < 0.001), and mortality rates
(P < 0.006) were all significantly lower in the PFN group.

24. Kim SY, Kim YG, Hwang JK: Cement- less calcar-replacement hemiarthro- plasty compared with intramedullary fixation of unstable
intertrochanteric fractures: A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87: 2186-2192.
Haentjens P, Casteleyn PP, De Boeck H, Handelberg F, Opdecam P: Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures in
el- derly patients: Primary bipolar arthro- plasty compared with internal fixa- tion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71: 1214-1225.
• Hemiarthroplasty Vs IM nail
– the hemiarthroplasty group was reported to have higher
transfusion rates.
– There is no overwhelming evidence from randomized
clinical trials to indicate that arthroplasty is more effective
than IM and extramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric
hip fractures.
• No significant differences in complications have been
reported between hemiarthroplasty or THA versus IM
fixation.

25. Kevin Kaplan, MD, et al Surgical Management of Hip Fractures: An Evidence-based Review of the Literature. II:
Intertrochanteric Fractures Volume 16, Number 11, November 2008
• There is no consensus regarding the ideal implant for
treating intertrochanteric fractures.
• based on the available evidence-based data, recommends
either a DHS or an IM device for stable intertrochanteric
fractures.
• For unstable fractures, we recommend an IM device.
• IM devices aid in early mobilization, return of ambulatory
function, decreased blood loss, and less surgical time.
• higher cost associated with the use of IM devices.

26. The current evidence is conflicting and does not
always support the treatment modalities that
are widely used in practice.
Techniques and implants continue to be
modified, making the older literature less
relevant to current practice.

27. With ongoing improvements in endoprostheses
and total hip replacements, increased surgeon
experience, and the need to separate stable
from unstable fractures, it is difficult to
recommend one optimum treatment of
intertrochanteric fractures from a purely
evidence-based perspective.

28. AAOS – Ten tips to better outcome
• Use the tip to apex distance
• No lateral wall, no hip screw
• Know the unstable intertrochanteric fracture patterns and Nail them
• Beware of the anterior bow of the femoral shaft
• When using a trochanteric entry nail, start slightly medial to the exact tip
of the greater trochanter
• Donot ream an unreduced fracture
• Becautious about the nail insertion trajectory and no not use a hammer to
seat the nail
• Avoid varus angulation of the proximal fragment – use the relation ship
between the tip of the trochanter and the center of the femoral head
• When nailing, lock the nail distally if the fracture is axially or rotationally
unstable
• Avoid fracture distraction when nailing

29. “Successful” fracture care does not
always correlate with a successful
functional outcome.
Thank You!!