RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Intertrochanteric hip fractures are one of the most common fractures in older people, and the number is estimated to increase. These fractures are often treated with intramedullary nailing; however, various complications have been reported. It is important to identify the potential complications and investigate whether the choice of implant and patient-related factors are associated with the risk of complications to develop better strategies for preventing them. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) In the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures with intramedullary nailing, what are the risks of major complications and 30-day mortality? (2) Which implant types are associated with greater odds of major complications? (3) Which patient-related factors are associated with increased odds of major complications? METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative study, we reviewed the health records of 2397 patients with a femoral fracture treated at one Level I trauma center between January 2014 and November 2020. Of those, we considered patients who were treated with intramedullary nailing for an intertrochanteric fracture after sustaining a low-energy injury as potentially eligible. Based on this criterion, 53% (1279) were eligible; a further 47% (1118) were excluded because the fixation method was other than intramedullary nailing, the fracture pattern was other than intertrochanteric fracture, or the fracture was caused by a high-energy injury mechanism. Another 4% (97) were excluded because they had incomplete datasets because of follow-up less than 12 months, leaving 49% (1182) for analysis. During the study period, intramedullary nails were generally used to treat nearly all intertrochanteric fractures at our hospital. The risk of complications was then assessed by chart review. Acute myocardial ischemia, cutout, nail breakage, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, stroke, and wound infection were defined as major complications. Cutout, nail breakage, and wound infection were defined as major complications leading to reoperation. To examine the association of implant type and major complications, a logistic regression analysis was performed. Additionally, the risks of major complications leading to reoperation were compared between implants. Finally, a univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between patient-related factors and major complications. RESULTS: The overall proportion of patients experiencing complications was 16% (183 of 1182), and the crude percentage of 30-day mortality was 9% (107 of 1182) based on the hospital`s medical records. After controlling for patient-related factors such as disease, age, and smoking, we found that nail type was not associated with odds of major complications leading to reoperation (Gamma3: OR 0.86 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; p = 0.67; Trochanteric Fixation Nail: OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.53]; p = 0.33; Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation: OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.16 to 1.49]; p = 0.29) compared with the Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced. Anticoagulation (OR 1.70 [95% CI 1.11 to 2.59]; p = 0.01), congestive heart failure (OR 1.91 [95% CI 1.13 to 3.11]; p = 0.01), and hypertension (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.08 to 2.63]; p = 0.02) were associated with a major complication. Liver disease (OR 5.19 [95% CI 0.78 to 20.8]; p = 0.04) was associated with a major complication leading to reoperation. CONCLUSION: This study provides a better understanding of the occurrence of surgical and medical complications after intramedullary nailing of intertrochanteric fractures. The new-generation nail types are comparable options based on the risk of reoperation. Anticoagulation, congestive heart failure, and hypertension were associated with major complications, highlighting the need for careful management and monitoring of these comorbidities during intramedullary nailing procedures.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.