Key result
Among retrieved hip plate devices, 19% of the Jewett design fractured in situ, while none of the Richards designs fractured.
Population
61 retrieved 316L stainless steel hip plate devices used for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures
Comparison
Jewett nail-type hip plates vs Richards compression screw-type hip plates
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
average 26.7 months in situ (range 2.0 to 156.0 months)
Authors
Loading...
Analysis of retrieved stainless steel hip plates revealed high rates of corrosion correlated with metallurgical properties, and a notable in situ fracture rate specific to the Jewett design.
Observational (n=61)
Absolute Event Rate: 19% vs 0%
Analysis of retrieved stainless steel hip plates revealed high rates of corrosion correlated with metallurgical properties, and a notable in situ fracture rate specific to the Jewett design.
Harding et al. (1985) conducted an observational in intertrochanteric fractures (n=61). Jewett nail-type hip plates vs. Richards compression screw-type hip plates was evaluated on device fracture in situ. Among retrieved hip plate devices, 19% of the Jewett design fractured in situ, while none of the Richards designs fractured.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: