Skip to main content

Table 2 Number of fractures, and fraction within fracture type group, treated with each fixation method for different fracture subtypes in the 2 treatment groups

From: Comparison and analysis of reoperations in two different treatment protocols for trochanteric hip fractures – postoperative technical complications with dynamic hip screw, intramedullary nail and Medoff sliding plate

Fracture typec Treatment protocol: MSP/DHSa Treatment protocol: IMN/DHSb
DHS MSP biaxial MSP locked uniaxial IMN DHS IMN
Stable pertrochanteric 56 (77%) 17 (23%) 0 0 59 (98%) 1 (2%)
 JM1 28 (88%) 4 (12%)    39 (98%) 1 (2%)
 JM2 28 (68%) 13 (32%)    20 (100%) 0
Unstable pertrochanteric 30 (9%) 288 (82%) 32 (9%) 0 163 (65%) 88 (35%)
 JM3 13 (16%) 60 (74%) 8 (10%)   67 (89%) 8 (11%)
 JM4 12 (20%) 43 (73%) 4 (7%)   13 (59%) 9 (41%)
 JM5 5 (2%) 185 (88%) 20 (10%)   83 (54%) 71 (46%)
Subtrochanteric 6 (9%) 5 (7%) 42 (61%) 16 (23%) 4 (8%) 49 (92%)
Divergence from treatment protocold
 JM1-JM2 with no lateral or no posterior support or JM3-JM4-JM5 31 (1e)      
 JM 3–4-5 with no lateral support      6 (2e)  
 JM3-JM4-JM5 with no lateral or no posterior support or subtrochanteric   8 (0e)     
  1. aTreatment protocol: Medoff sliding plate (MSP)/dynamic hip screw (DHS)
  2. bTreatment protocol: Intramedullary nail (IMN)/dynamic hip screw (DHS)
  3. c JM Jensen Michaelsen fracture classification
  4. dThe number of operations among the above with fixation methods with main divergence from the respective treatment protocol for grouped fracture subtypes
  5. eAmong these, number of reoperations with technical complication
Back to article page

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us