Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
AIMS: The aim of this paper is to review the evidence relating to the anatomy of the proximal femur, the geometry of the fracture and the characteristics of implants and methods of fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant papers were identified from appropriate clinical databases and a narrative review was undertaken. RESULTS: Stable, unstable, and subtrochanteric intertrochanteric fractures vary widely in their anatomical and biomechanical characteristics, as do the implants used for their fixation. The optimal choice of implant addresses the stability of the fracture and affects the outcome. CONCLUSION: The treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip has evolved along with changes in the design of the implants used to fix them, but there remains conflicting evidence to guide the choice of implant. We advocate fixation of 31A1 fractures with a sliding hip screw and all others with an intramedullary device. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:128-33.
Socci et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: