Dynamic hip screws versus cephalocondylic intramedullary nails for unstable extracapsular hip fractures in 2021: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background: Extracapsular hip fractures comprise approximately half of all hip fractures and the incidence of hip fractures is exponentially increasing. Extramedullary fixation using a dynamic hip screw (DHS) has been the gold standard method of operative treatment for unstable extracapsular fractures, however, in recent years, intra-medullary nails (IMN) have become a popular alternative. IMN versus DHS is continuously discussed and debated in literature. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to directly compare the peri-and post-operative outcomes of these two techniques to provide an up-to-date analysis of which method of fixation is superior.Methods: The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science Database were searched for eligible studies from 2008 to April 2022 that compared peri-and post-operational outcomes for patients undergoing IMN or DHS operations for fixation of unstable extracapsular hip fractures (PROSPERO registration ID:CRD42021228335). Primary outcomes included mortality rate and re-operation rate. Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, complication, and failure of fixation rate. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE analysis tool, respectively.Results: Of the 6776 records identified, 22 studies involving 3151 patients were included in the final review. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences between mortality rates (10 studies, OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, p = 0.88) or re-operation rates (10 studies, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, p = 0.91) between the two procedures. There were also no significant differences found between complication rates (17 studies, OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.79 to 2.12, p = 0.31) and failure of fixation rates (14 studies, OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.38, p = 0.35). However, DHS operations had a significantly longer operation time (p < 0.0001) and blood loss (p < 0.00001) than IMN operations. Conclusion: Overall, based on the outcomes assessed, this review has demonstrated that there is no significant difference in the post-operative outcomes for DHS vs IMN, however a significant difference exists in two of the intraoperative outcomes assessed in this review.