Skip to main content

Table 5 Number of technical complications in unstable pertrochanteric and in subtrochanteric fractures 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 type Implant Treatment protocol Relative riskc
MSP/DHSa IMN/DHSb
Unstable pertrochanteric   All technical complications  
7/350 (2,0%) 11/251 (4,4%) 2.9 (0.89–5.4)
DHS 1/30 7/163  
MSP biaxial 4/288 -  
MSP uniaxial 2/32 -  
IMN - 4/88  
  Intermediate and major technical complications  
3/350 (0,86%) 9/251 (3,6%) 4.2 (1.2–14)
DHS 1/30 5/163  
MSP biaxial 2/288 -  
MSP uniaxial 0/32 -  
IMN - 4/88  
  Major technical complications  
2/350 (0,57%) 7/251 (2,8%) 4.9 (1.2–21)
DHS 1/30 4/163  
MSP biaxial 1/288 -  
MSP uniaxial 0/32 -  
IMN - 3/88  
Subtrochanteric   All technical complications  
5/69 (7,2%) 8/53 (15%) 2.1 (0.78–5.8)
DHS 0/6 1/4  
MSP biaxial 0/5 -  
MSP uniaxial 4/42 -  
IMN 1/16 7/49  
  Intermediate and major technical complications  
2/69 (2,9%) 7/53 (13%) 4.6 (1.1–19)
DHS 0/6 1/4  
MSP biaxial 0/5 -  
MSP uniaxial 1/42 -  
IMN 1/16 6/49  
  Major technical complications  
0/69 3/53 (5,7%) 8.6 (0.45–163)
DHS 0/6 0/4  
MSP biaxial 0/5 0  
MSP uniaxial 0/42 0  
IMN 0/16 3/49  
  1. DHS dynamic hip screw, MSP Medoff sliding plate, IMN intramedullary nail
  2. aTreatment protocol: Medoff sliding plate (MSP)/dynamic hip screw (DHS)
  3. bTreatment protocol: intramedullary nail (IMN)/dynamic hip screw (DHS)
  4. c95% CI