SPECIAL REPORTS

e-ISSN 1643-3750
© Med Sci Monit, 2014; 20: 1628-1633
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.890962

Received: 2014.05.04
Accepted: 2014.05.27
Published: 2014.09.12
Authors’ Contribution:
Study Design  A
Data Collection  B
Analysis  C
Statistical
Data Interpretation  D
Manuscript Preparation  E
Literature Search  F
Collection  G
Funds
Proximal Femoral Nail vs. Dynamic Hip Screw
in Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures:
A Meta-Analysis
AC 1 Kairui Zhang* 1 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern
AC 1 Sheng Zhang* Medical University, Guangzhou, China
2 Department of Orthopaedics, 421 Hospital of PLA, Guangzhou, China
B 1,2 Jun Yang 3 Department of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital to Guangzhou Medical
B 1,3 Weiqiang Dong University, Guangzhou, China
B 1 Shengnan Wang 4 Department of Orthopaedics, Subei People’s Hospital of Jiangsu Province (Clinical
Medical College of Yangzhou University), Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, China
F 1 Yirong Cheng
D 1 Mohammed Al-Qwbani
A 4 Qiang Wang
A 1 Bin Yu

* Kairui Zhang and Sheng Zhang are co-first authors who contributed equally to this work
Corresponding Author: Bin Yu, e-mail: 280219927@qq.com and Qiang Wang, e-mail: 1780468505@qq.com
Source of support: Departmental sources

Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of proximal femoral nail (PFN) and dynamic hip
screw (DHS) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.
Material/Methods: Relevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing the effects of PFN and DHS were
searched for following the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Six eligible studies involving 669
fractures were included. Their methodological quality was assessed and data were extracted independently for
meta-analysis.
Results: The results showed that the PFN group had significantly less operative time (WMD: –21.15, 95% CI: –34.91 –
–7.39, P=0.003), intraoperative blood loss (WMD: –139.81, 95% CI: –210.39 – –69.22, P=0.0001), and length of
incision (WMD: –6.97, 95% CI: –9.19 – –4.74, P<0.00001) than the DHS group. No significant differences were
found between the 2 groups regarding postoperative infection rate, lag screw cut-out rate, or reoperation rate.
Conclusions: The current evidence indicates that PFN may be a better choice than DHS in the treatment of intertrochanter-
ic fractures.

MeSH Keywords: Bone Screws • Hip Fractures • Meta-Analysis as Topic

Full-text PDF: http://www.medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/890962

 1750    2    7    23

Indexed in:  [Current Contents/Clinical Medicine]  [SCI Expanded]  [ISI Alerting System] 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License 1628 [ISI Journals Master List]  [Index Medicus/MEDLINE]  [EMBASE/Excerpta Medica] 
[Chemical Abstracts/CAS]  [Index Copernicus]
Zhang K. et al.:
Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment…
© Med Sci Monit, 2014; 20: 1628-1633
Background
The incidence of intertrochanteric fractures has been increas-
ing significantly due to the rising age of modern human pop-
ulations [1,2]. Generally, intramedullary fixation and extra-
medullary fixation are the 2 primary options for treatment
of such fractures. The dynamic hip screw (DHS), commonly
used in extramedullary fixation, has become a standard im-
plant in treatment of these fractures [3,4]. Proximal femo-
ral nail (PFN) and Gamma nail are 2 commonly used devices
in the intramedullary fixation. Previous studies showed that
the Gamma nail did not perform as well as DHS because it
led to a relatively higher incidence of post-operative femo-
ral shaft fracture [5,6].
PFN, introduced by the AO/ASIF group in 1997, has become
prevalent in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in recent
years because it was improved by addition of an antirotation
hip screw proximal to the main lag screw. However, both ben-
efits and technical failures of PFN have been reported [7–9]
Although the effects of PFN and DHS in treatment of intertro-
chanteric fractures have been reported, the results and con-
clusions are not consistent [10–15]. Therefore, we conducted
this meta-analysis to investigate whether there is a significant
difference between PFN and DHS fixation in treatment of in-
tertrochanteric fractures.
Our aim was to evaluate clinical results comparing PFN with
DHS, including comparison of operative time, intraoperative
blood loss, length of incision, postoperative infection rate, lag
screw cut-out rate, and reoperation rate. We hypothesized that
PFN would be a superior treatment for intertrochanteric frac-
tures compared with DHS.
Material and Methods
We searched for randomized or quasi-randomized controlled
studies comparing the effects of PFN and DHS according to
the search strategy of the Cochrane Collaboration. It includ-
ed searching of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group
Trials Register, computer searching of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and
Current Contents, and hand searching of orthopedic jour-
nals. All databases were searched from the earliest records
to August 2012. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in
selecting eligible studies were: (1) target population – individ-
uals with intertrochanteric fractures, excluding subtrochan-
teric and pathological fractures; (2) intervention – DHS fixa-
tion compared with PFN fixation; (3) methodological criteria
– prospective, randomized, or quasi-randomized controlled tri-
als; (4) duplicate or multiple publications of the same study
were not included.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
SPECIAL REPORTS
Data were collected by 2 independent researchers who screened
titles, abstracts, and keywords both electronically and by hand;
differences were resolved by discussion. Full texts of citations
that could possibly be included in the present meta-analysis
were retrieved for further analysis. The assessment method from
the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
was used to evaluate the studies in terms of blinding, alloca-
tion concealment, follow-up coverage, and quality level. The
study quality was assessed according to whether allocation
concealment was: adequate (A), unclear (B), inadequate (C), or
not used (D). Operative time (min), intraoperative blood loss
(ml), length of incision, post-operative infection, lag screw cut-
out rate, and reoperation rate were the main measures in the
studies included, which the present meta-analysis evaluated
to compare the effects of PFN and DHS. We did not undertake
a subgroup analysis for different fracture types because not all
of the studies included described the fracture types.
In each eligible study the relative risk (RR) was calculated for
dichotomous outcomes and the weighted mean difference
for continuous outcomes using the software Review Manager
5.0, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) adopted in both.
Heterogeneity was tested using both the chi-square test and
the I-square test. A significance level of less than 0.10 for the
chi-square test was interpreted as evidence of heterogeneity.
The I-square was used to estimate total variation across stud-
ies. When there was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity,
a fixed-effect model was adopted; otherwise, a random-ef-
fect model was chosen. We did not include the possibility of
publishing bias due to the small number of studies included.
Results
A total of 48 articles comparing PFN and DHS that had been pub-
lished from 1969 to August 2012 were retrieved: 37 were from
MEDLINE, 6 from the Cochrane Library, and 5 from the EMBASE
Library. Among them, 13 trials met the inclusion criteria. After ex-
cluding non-randomized control trials and retrospective articles, 6
randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials [10–15] were
included (Figure 1). The number of fractures included in a single
study ranged from 64 to 206. There were a total of 669 fractures.
Three research papers targeted Asian patients, and the other 3
targeted Caucasians. All studies except 1 had more female than
male patients; 308 fractures were managed with PFN and 361
managed with DHS. The quality of the 6 studies included was
level B because the allocation concealment was unclear accord-
ing to the evaluation criteria mentioned above (Tables 1 and 2).
Operative time
Four studies [10,12,14,15] provided data on operative time.
The random-effects model was used because of the statistical
Indexed in:  [Current Contents/Clinical Medicine]  [SCI Expanded]  [ISI Alerting System] 
1629 [ISI Journals Master List]  [Index Medicus/MEDLINE]  [EMBASE/Excerpta Medica] 
[Chemical Abstracts/CAS]  [Index Copernicus]
 Zhang K. et al.:
SPECIAL REPORTS Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment…
© Med Sci Monit, 2014; 20: 1628-1633

the statistical heterogeneity (I2=94%). The meta-analysis in-

Potentially relevant articles identified and screened for retrieval (n=48) dicated that the intraoperative blood loss for the PFN group
was significantly less than for the DHS group (WMD: –139.81,
Articles not meeting inclusion criteria (n= 35)
95% CI: –210.39 – –69.22, P=0.0001) (Figure 3).

Studies retrieved for more detailed evaluation (n=13)

Length of incision

Non-randomised control studies and retrospective studies

(n=7)
Articles included in the meta-analysis (n=6)
Figure 1. Flowchart of study search and selection for the
meta-analysis.
heterogeneity (I2=97%). The meta-analysis indicated that the
operative time for the PFN group was significantly shorter
than for the DHS group (WMD: –21.15, 95% CI: –34.91 – –7.39,
P=0.003) (Figure 2).
Intraoperative blood loss
Four studies [11,12,14,15] provided data on intraoperative
blood loss. The random-effects model was used because of
Two studies [12,15] provided data on length of incision. The ran-
dom-effects model was used because of the statistical heteroge-
neity (I2=91%). The meta-analysis indicated that the length of in-
cision in the PFN group was significantly shorter than in the DHS
group (WMD: –6.97, 95% CI: –9.19 – –4.74, P<0.00001) (Figure 4).
Postoperative infection rate
Five studies [10–14] provided data on postoperative infection
rate. Postoperative infection was observed in 6 of the 254 frac-
tures managed with PFN, and in 7 of the 273 fractures man-
aged with DHS. Heterogeneity tests indicated no statistical
evidence of heterogeneity (I2=0%). Data pooled by a fixed-ef-
fects model and the meta-analysis indicated an insignificant-
ly higher rate of postoperative infection in the DHS group (RR:
0.96, 95% CI: 0.33–2.8, P=0.94) (Figure 5).

Table 1. Description of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Target Length of Number of fractures

Studies Age (years): PFN/DHS Men (%) Outcomes*
population follow-up PFN DHS

Saudan et al. [10] 83±9.7/83.7±10.1 22.3 Switzerland 12 months 100 100 1, 4, 5, 6

PAN et al. [12] 70±6.8/69±7.11 73 Asia 16 months 30 34 1, 2, 3, 4

Papasimos et al. [13] 79.4/81.4 38.6 Greece 12 months 40 40 4, 5, 6

Pajarinen et al. [11] 80.9±9.1/80.3±10.8 25 Finland 4 months 54 54 2, 4, 5, 6

Shen et al. [14] 72.1±6.61/71.2±7.11 40.2 Asia 16 months 51 56 1, 2, 4

ZHAO et al. [15] 76 (63–87)/74.5 (61–92) 40.4 Asia 19 months 33 71 1, 2, 3, 5

* 1 – operative time; 2 – intraoperative blood loss; 3 – length of incision; 4 – postoperative infection rate; 5 – lag screw cut-out rate;
6 – reoperation rate.

Table 2. Methodological quality of studies included.

Baseline Allocation Loss to

Studies Randomisation Blinding Level
Age Sex Fracture type concealment follow-up

Saudan et al. [10] Comparable Comparable Incomparable Inadequate Unclear Unclear Yes B

PAN et al. [12] Comparable Comparable Comparable Inadequate Unclear Unclear Not reported B

Papasimos et al. [13] Comparable Comparable Comparable Adequate Unclear Unclear None B

Pajarinen et al. [11] Comparable Comparable Comparable Inadequate Unclear Unclear Yes B

Shen et al. [14] Comparable Comparable Incomparable Inadequate Unclear Unclear None B

ZHAO et al. [15] Comparable Comparable Comparable Inadequate Unclear Unclear None B

Indexed in:  [Current Contents/Clinical Medicine]  [SCI Expanded]  [ISI Alerting System] 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License 1630 [ISI Journals Master List]  [Index Medicus/MEDLINE]  [EMBASE/Excerpta Medica] 
[Chemical Abstracts/CAS]  [Index Copernicus]
Zhang K. et al.:
Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment…
© Med Sci Monit, 2014; 20: 1628-1633
SPECIAL REPORTS

PFN DHS Mean difference Mean difference

Study or subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, random, 95% CI IV, random, 95% CI
Pan et al. 2004 59.16 16.92 30 87.35 21.29 34 23.6% –28.19 [–37.56, –18.82]
Saudan et al. 2002 64.00 33.00 100 65.00 26.00 106 24.2% –1.00 [–9.14, 7.14]
Shen et al. 2007 62.06 7.89 51 99.56 12.51 56 25.9% –37.50 [–41.43, –33.57]
Zhao et al. 2009 51.50 4.40 33 68.80 5.90 71 26.3% –17.30 [–19.33, –15.27]

Total (95% CI) 214 267 100.% –21.15 [–34.91, –7.39]

Heterogeneity: Tau2=186.24; Chi2=105.92, df=3 (P<0.00001); I2=97% –100 –50 0 50 100

Test for overall effect: Z=3.01 (P=0.003) PFN DHS

Figure 2. Operative time.

PFN DHS Mean difference Mean difference

Study or subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, random, 95% CI IV, random, 95% CI
Pajarinen et al. 2005 320.00 310.00 54 357.00 495.00 54 12.6% –37.00 [–192.78, 118.78]
Pan et al. 2004 273.33 120.80 30 480.88 177.90 34 24.0% –207.55 [–281.34, –133.76]
Shen et al. 2007 123.73 45.74 51 304.12 82.12 56 31.2% –180.39 [–205.46, –155.32]
Zhao et al. 2009 179.00 12.90 33 269.30 269.30 71 32.3% –90.30 [–100.59, –80.01]

Total (95% CI) 168 215 100.% –139.81 [–210.39, –69.22]

Heterogeneity: Tau2=3993.56; Chi2=50.71, df=3 (P<0.00001); I2=94% –500 –250 0 250 500
Test for overall effect: Z=3.88 (P=0.0001) PFN DHS

Figure 3. Intraoperative blood loss.

PFN DHS Mean difference Mean difference

Study or subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, random, 95% CI IV, random, 95% CI
Pan et al. 2004 14.20 2.02 30 22.38 2.98 34 46.7% –8.18 [–9.42, –6.94]
Zhao et al. 2009 9.60 0.90 33 15.50 1.50 71 53.3% –5.90 [–6.36, –5.44]

Total (95% CI) 63 105 100.% –6.97 [–9.19, –4.74]

Heterogeneity: Tau2=2.37; Chi2=11.46, df=1 (P<0.0007); I2=97% –20 –10 0 10 20

Test for overall effect: Z=6.12 (P<0.0001) PFN DHS

Figure 4. Length of incision.

PFN DHS Odds ratio Odds ratio

Study or subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, fixed, 95% CI M-H, fixed, 95% CI
Pajarinen et al. 2005 0 54 0 54 Not estimable
Pan et al. 2004 2 30 4 34 51.5% 0.54 [0.09, 3.16]
Papasimos et al. 2005 1 40 1 40 14.3% 1.00 [0.06, 16.56]
Saudan et al. 2002 3 79 1 89 13.3% 3.47 [0.35, 34.09]
Shen et al. 2007 0 51 1 56 20.9% 0.36 [0.01, 9.02]

Total (95% CI) 254 273 100.% 0.96 [0.33, 2.80]

Total events 6 7
Heterogeneity: Chi2=1.99, df=3 (P=0.057); I2=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.08 (P=0.94) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PFN DHS

Figure 5. Postoperative infection rate.

Indexed in:  [Current Contents/Clinical Medicine]  [SCI Expanded]  [ISI Alerting System] 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License 1631 [ISI Journals Master List]  [Index Medicus/MEDLINE]  [EMBASE/Excerpta Medica] 
[Chemical Abstracts/CAS]  [Index Copernicus]
 Zhang K. et al.:
SPECIAL REPORTS Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment…
© Med Sci Monit, 2014; 20: 1628-1633

PFN DHS Odds ratio Odds ratio

Study or subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, fixed, 95% CI M-H, fixed, 95% CI
Pajarinen et al. 2005 1 54 1 54 16.2% 1.00 [0.06, 16.41]
Papasimos et al. 2005 1 39 2 39 32.2% 0.49 [0.04, 5.60]
Saudan et al. 2002 3 79 1 89 15.0% 3.47 [0.35, 34.09]
Zhao et al. 2009 0 33 3 71 36.6% 0.29 [0.01, 5.82]

Total (95% CI) 205 253 100.% 0.95 [0.30, 2.97]

Total events 5 7
Heterogeneity: Chi2=2.12, df=3 (P=0.055); I2=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.10 (P=0.92) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PFN DHS

Figure 6. Lag screw cut-out rate.

PFN DHS Odds ratio Odds ratio

Study or subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, fixed, 95% CI M-H, fixed, 95% CI
Pajarinen et al. 2005 2 54 2 54 30.7% 1.00 [0.14, 7.37]
Papasimos et al. 2005 5 39 3 39 41.7% 1.76 [0.39, 7.96]
Saudan et al. 2002 6 79 2 89 27.7% 3.58 [0.70, 18.25]

Total (95% CI) 172 182 100.% 2.03 [0.79, 5.23]

Total events 13 7
Heterogeneity: Chi2=0.98, df=2 (P=0.61); I2=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=1.47 (P=0.14) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PFN DHS

Figure 7. Reoperation rate.

Lag screw cut-out rate
Four studies [10,11,13,15] provided data on lag screw cut-
out rate. Lag screw cut-out was observed in 5 of the 205 frac-
tures managed with PFN and in 7 of the 253 fractures man-
aged with DHS. Heterogeneity tests indicated no statistical
evidence of heterogeneity (I2=0%). Data pooled by a fixed-ef-
fects model and the meta-analysis indicated an insignificant-
ly higher rate of lag screw cut-out in the DHS group (RR: 0.95,
95% CI: 0.30–2.97, P=0.92) (Figure 6).
Reoperation rate
Three studies [10,11,13] provided data on reoperation rate.
Reoperation was needed in 13 of the 172 fractures managed
with PFN and in 7 of the 182 fractures managed with DHS.
Heterogeneity tests indicated no statistical evidence of heteroge-
neity (I2=0%). Data pooled by a fixed-effects model and the me-
ta-analysis indicated an insignificantly higher rate of reoperation
in the PFN group (RR: 2.03, 95% CI: 0.79–5.23, P=0.14) (Figure 7).
Discussion
The varus collapse of the head and neck caused by lag
screw cut-out or lateral protrusion is one of most common
post-operative complications that lead to surgical failure in
treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. The cut-out (includ-
ing ‘Z’ effect) rates were about 3–10% in PFN and DHS [16,17].
Most studies reported that lag screw position might be asso-
ciated with the rate of cut-out in DHS fixation. Cut-out was
thought to be caused either by improper lag screw placement
in the anterior superior quadrant of the head or by not plac-
ing the screw close enough to the subchondral region of the
head [18]. Baumgaertner et al. showed that a small tip apex
distance (TAD) – less than 25 mm – was associated with a low-
er probability for cutout. Their conclusion was widely accept-
ed by most surgeons [18–20]. Another explanation for cut-out
is that because the screw is rotationally unstable within the
bone when a single lag screw is used, flexion-extension of the
limb results in loosening of the bone screw interface, leading
to the secondary cut-out of the screw.
In 1997, PFN was introduced for treatment of intertrochanteric
fractures. It was designed to overcome implant-related compli-
cations and facilitate the surgical treatment of unstable inter-
trochanteric fractures [21]. PFN uses 2 implant screws for fix-
ation into the femoral head and neck. The larger femoral neck
screw is intended to carry most of the load. The smaller hip pin
is inserted to provide rotational stability. Biomechanical anal-
ysis of PFN showed a significant reduction of distal stress and

Indexed in:  [Current Contents/Clinical Medicine]  [SCI Expanded]  [ISI Alerting System] 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License 1632 [ISI Journals Master List]  [Index Medicus/MEDLINE]  [EMBASE/Excerpta Medica] 
[Chemical Abstracts/CAS]  [Index Copernicus]
Zhang K. et al.:
Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment…
© Med Sci Monit, 2014; 20: 1628-1633
an increase in overall stability compared with the Gamma nail
[22]. Despite the mechanical advantages of PFN, lag screw cut-
out remains a significant problem, especially in the more un-
stable fractures. This meta-analysis also found a higher rate
of lag screw cut-out in the DHS group, though it was not sta-
tistically significant. This indicates that the anti-rotation screw
of the PFN may not be beneficial enough. However, Herman
et al. showed that the mechanical failure rate increased from
4.8% to 34.4% when the centre of the lag screw was not in the
second quarter of the head-neck interface line (the so-called
‘‘safe zone’’) (p=0.001) and that the lag screw insertions low-
er or higher than the head apex line by 11 mm were associat-
ed with failure rates of 5.5% and 18.6%, respectively (p=0.004)
[23]. They suggested that placing the lag screw within the ‘‘safe
zone’’ could significantly reduce the mechanical failure rate
when PFN was used to treat intertrochanteric fractures [23].
PFN, inserted by means of a minimally invasive procedure, al-
lows surgeons to minimize soft tissue dissection, thereby re-
ducing surgical trauma and blood loss. The results of this meta-
analysis also demonstrates that operative time, intraoperative
blood loss, and length of incision in the PFN group are signif-
icantly less than in the DHS group. Therefore, because of its
minimal invasiveness, we recommend PFN as a better choice
References:
1. Cummings SR, Rubin SM, Black D: The future of hip fractures in the United
States. Numbers, costs, and potential effects of postmenopausal estrogen.
Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1990; 252: 163–66
2. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H et al: Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone,
1996; 18(Suppl.1): 57–63
3. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT: Fixation of intertrochanteric frac-
tures of the femur. A randomized prospective comparison of the gamma
nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1991; 73(2): 330–34
4. Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK: Aprospective randomised comparison of
the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br,
1993; 75(5): 789–93
5. Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS: Comparison of dynamic hip screw and
gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury, 1995; 9:
615–18
6. Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Ristiniemi J et al: Functional comparison of the dy-
namic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail in trochanteric hip fractures:
a matched-pair study of 268 patients. Int Orthop, 2009; 33(1): 255–60
7. Nuber S, Schönweiss T, Rüter A: Stabilisation of unstable trochanteric femo-
ral fractures. Dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate
vs. proximal femur nail (PFN). Unfallchirurg, 2003; 106(1): 39–47
8. Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F et al: The proximal femoral nail (PFN): a
minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a pro-
spective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop
Scand, 2003; 74(1): 53–58
9. Pires RE, Santana EO Jr, Santos LE et al: Failure of fixation of trochanter-
ic femur fractures: clinical recommendations for avoiding Z-efect and re-
verse Z-efect type complications. Patient Saf Surg, 2011; 22: 17
10. Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C et al: Pertrochanteric fractures: is there
an advantage to an intramedullary nail?: a randomized, prospective study
of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral
nail. J Orthop Trauma, 2002; 16: 386–93
11. Pajarinen J, Lindahl J, Michelsson O et al: Pertrochanteric femoral fractures
treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail: a randomised
study comparing postoperative rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2005;
87: 76–81
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License 1633
SPECIAL REPORTS
than DHS in the treatment of elderly patients with intertro-
chanteric fracture.
There are several limitations in our meta-analysis. Firstly, the
number of studies included and the sample size of patients
were quite limited. In addition, the 6 studies were of relative-
ly poor quality (Level B), which might weaken the strength of
the findings. Secondly, we did not undertake a subgroup anal-
ysis of different fracture types because not all the studies in-
cluded described the fracture types. Furthermore, not all the
studies included had long enough follow-up periods, which
also reduces the power of our research.
Conclusions
In summary, the current available data indicate that PFN may
be a better choice than DHS in the treatment of intertrochan-
teric fractures.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the advice and assistance of Prof.
Ping Liang.
12. Pan X-h, Xiao D-m, Lin B-w: Dynamic hip screws (DHS) and proximal fem-
oral nails (PFN) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of femur in el-
derly patients. Chin J Orthop Trauma, 2004; 7: 785–89
13. Papasimos S, Koutsojannis CM, Panagopoulos A et al: A randomised com-
parison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric frac-
tures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2005; 125: 462–68
14. Shen H-m, Liang C-w, Fan Y-q: The Clinical Study of the Treatment of
Intertrochanteric Fractures in the Elderly with DHS, Gamma nail and PFN.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2007; 2: 226–28
15. Zhao C, Liu D-y, Guo J-j: Comparison of proximal femoral nail and dynamic
hip screw for treating intertrochanteric fractures. China J Orthop & Trauma,
2009; 7: 535–37
16. Parker MJ, Pryor GA: Gamma versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral frac-
tures. Meta-analysis of ten randomised trials. Int Orthop, 1996; 20: 163–68
17. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM et al: Treatment of unstable tro-
chanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the
proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2004; 86: 86–94
18. Baumgaertner MR, Solberg BD: Awareness of tip-apex distance reduces
failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br,
1997; 79: 969–71
19. Goffin JM, Pankaj P, Simpson AH: The importance of lag screw position for
the stabilization of trochanteric fractures with a sliding hip screw: A sub-
ject-specific finite element study. J Orthop Res, 2013; 31: 596–600
20. Verhofstad MH, van der Werken C: DHS osteosynthesis for stable per-
trochanteric femur fractures with a two-hole side plate. Injury, 2004; 35:
999–1002
21. Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, Van der Werken C: The AO/ASIF-proximal
femoral nail (PFN): A new device for the treatment of unstable proximal
femoral fractures. Injury, 1999; 30: 327–32
22. Götze B, Bonnaire F, Weise K, Friedl HP: Belast-bahrkeit von Osteosynthesen
bei instabilen per-und subtrochanteren Femurfrakturen. Aktuelle Traumatol,
1998; 28: 197–204
23. Herman A, Landau Y, Gutman G et al: Radiological evaluation of intertro-
chanteric fracture fixation by the proximal femoral nail. Injury, 2012; 43:
856–63
Indexed in:  [Current Contents/Clinical Medicine]  [SCI Expanded]  [ISI Alerting System] 
[ISI Journals Master List]  [Index Medicus/MEDLINE]  [EMBASE/Excerpta Medica] 
[Chemical Abstracts/CAS]  [Index Copernicus]