title: A randomized, prospective study comparing intertrochanteric hip fracture fixation with the dynamic hip screw and the dynamic helical hip system in a community practice.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the clinical performance of the Dynamic Helical Hip System (DHHS) spiral blade relative to the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) lag screw.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized prospective study.
  
  
  METHODS
  One level-2 trauma center and one level-3 trauma center.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty-one consecutive patients were recruited into the trial. Inclusion criteria included patients over 50 years of age with AO/OTA 31A1 or 31A2 fracture.
  
  
  METHODS
  Surgeries were performed by one of 15 participating community orthopaedic surgeons. The patients were randomized to either a DHHS or DHS implant. Follow-up occurred at two weeks and six weeks and then at six-week intervals until healing occurred.
  
  
  METHODS
  Primary outcome variables included sliding of die implant on the final AP radiographs, failure by cut-out and implant failure.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were 24 patients in the DHS group and 27 in the DHHS group. There was no difference in age, gender, ASA score, fracture classification or in the quality of reduction measured on the immediate postoperative radiographs (p=0.28) between the two groups. The tip apex distance was 18.7 mm in the DHHS group and 18.5 mm in the DHS group (p=0.40). The DHHS group had average blade sliding of 7.4 mm while the DHS group had an average lag-screw sliding of 7.7 (p=0.45). The DHHS group had two failures by central protrusion of the blade through the femoral head without significant varus collapse or superior migration. One was revised to a DHS and healed, the other was revised to a proximal femoral locking plate, which also failed and eventually required revision to a total hip arthroplasty. Investigation of the implants post failure showed evidence of binding of the blade shaft in the barrel as a mechanism of failure in both cases. No DHS implants cut out in this series, although one patient was revised to a total hip arthroplasty for symptomatic segmental osteonecrosis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both implants performed well in a majority of cases. The higher incidence of failure in the DHHS group is concerning, despite the low numbers. The mechanism of failure of the DHHS implant left adequate bone stock for attempts at revision fixation.
authors.affiliation: Slocum Center for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Eugene, OR, USA. danfitz@mac.com
authors.forename: Daniel C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Fitzpatrick
authors.forename: Daniel V
authors.initials: DV
authors.lastname: Sheerin
authors.forename: Brian R
authors.initials: BR
authors.lastname: Wolf
authors.forename: Thomas K
authors.initials: TK
authors.lastname: Wuest
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001863:Bone Screws; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006620:Hip Fractures / Q000601:surgery*; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D016268:Internal Fixators; D008297:Male; D019637:Orthopedic Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D014193:Trauma Centers; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: J Orthop Res. 2005 Nov;23(6):1329-35
references.pmid: 15994054
references.citation: J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Jul;18(6):361-8
references.pmid: 15213501
references.citation: Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:441-54
references.pmid: 15116633
references.citation: J Surg Orthop Adv. 2007 Summer;16(2):62-6
references.pmid: 17592712
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959 Dec;41-A:1399-408
references.pmid: 13849408
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979 Mar;61(2):216-21
references.pmid: 422605
references.citation: Orthop Rev. 1994 Aug;Suppl:30-7
references.pmid: 7970881
references.citation: Med J Malaysia. 2001 Dec;56 Suppl D:12-7
references.pmid: 14569760
references.citation: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Jan;24(1):59-64
references.pmid: 18977058
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980 Dec;62(8):1308-14
references.pmid: 7440609
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Mar;(252):163-6
references.pmid: 2302881
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Nov;79(6):969-71
references.pmid: 9393914
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 23;343(21):1562-3
references.pmid: 11087887
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 May;80(5):618-30
references.pmid: 9611022
references.citation: J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7(4):348-53
references.pmid: 8377045
references.citation: Injury. 1984 May;15(6):411-4
references.pmid: 6724688
references.citation: Vital Health Stat 13. 2001 Sep;(151):i-v, 1-206
references.pmid: 11594088
references.citation: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Jan;24(1):53-8
references.pmid: 19012997
references.citation: J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Sep;17(8 Suppl):S2-5
references.pmid: 14696770
references.citation: Injury. 1997 Jun-Jul;28(5-6):337-41
references.pmid: 9764228
references.citation: J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10 Suppl 1:v-ix, 1-154
references.pmid: 8814583
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jul;77(7):1058-64
references.pmid: 7608228