Fixation Options Following Greater Trochanteric Osteotomies and Fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal system for greater trochanteric fixation following osteotomy or fracture remains unknown. This systematic review aims to synthesize the available English-language literature on 5 commonly reported trochanteric fixation methods to quantify and compare rates of complications and reoperation. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and Embase databases from January 1946 to June 2017 was performed for articles in English describing fixation of trochanteric osteotomies and fractures using wires, cables, cable-plate devices, claw or locking plates, and trochanteric bolts. Pooled mean rates of complications and reoperation with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies involving 10,956 hips were eligible for inclusion. Five studies had Level-III evidence and 52 had Level-IV evidence. The pooled mean rate of nonunion was 4.17% (95% CI, 3.21% to 5.13%; I = 79%) for wires, 5.07% (95% CI, 0.37% to 9.77%; I = 74%) for cables, 16.11% (95% CI, 10.85% to 21.37%; I = 89%) for cable-plate systems, 9.60% (95% CI, 2.23% to 16.97%; I = 59%) for claw or locking plates, and 12.42% (95% CI, 3.41% to 21.43%; I = 75%) for trochanteric bolts. Substantial heterogeneity in the data precluded formal statistical comparison of outcomes and complications between implants. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature on the various trochanteric fixation implants is heterogeneous and consists primarily of retrospective case series. Based on the current literature, it is difficult to support the use of one implant over another. Despite superior mechanical properties, rates of complication and reoperation following cable-plate fixation remains suboptimal, especially in complex revision scenarios. Additional rigorous prospective randomized and cohort studies are needed to make definitive recommendations regarding the most reliable method of trochanteric fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".