Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate and compare the 1-year mortality outcomes of elderly patients with hip fractures treated with either hemiarthroplasty (HA) or proximal femoral nailing (PFN), focusing on both intracapsular and extracapsular fractures.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 210 patients aged 60 years or older who underwent hip fracture surgery between January 2020 and December 2021. Patients were categorized into three groups: Group 1 (PFN for extracapsular fractures), Group 2 (HA for intracapsular fractures), and Group 3 (HA for extracapsular fractures). Demographic variables, surgical details, and 1-year mortality were analyzed.

Results

The overall 1-year mortality rate was 37.6%. Mortality was lowest in patients treated with PFN for extracapsular fractures and highest in those treated with HA for extracapsular fractures. Older age and male gender were associated with increased mortality, while female gender had a protective effect.

Conclusion

PFN should be considered the preferred surgical approach for elderly patients with extracapsular hip fractures due to its lower mortality and complication rates. HA, while effective for intracapsular fractures, presents higher risks in extracapsular cases. Tailoring surgical strategies to fracture type is essential to optimize patient outcomes.

Keywords

hemiarthroplasty hip fracture mortality osteosynthesis proximal femoral nail

Introduction

Hip fracture is a severe injury that frequently occurs in older adults after low-energy falls. It is a significant health issue, particularly in the elderly, as it can result in long-term disability, reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare costs. Whether to use hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty for elderly intracapsular hip fractures is controversial, but arthroplasty is traditionally preferred.¹ In contrast, osteosynthesis is widely accepted as the treatment of choice for extracapsular proximal femur fractures.^2,3 Among osteosynthesis techniques, the proximal femoral nail (PFN) has become the most frequently preferred method for extracapsular hip fractures. However, complications such as nonunion, malunion, femoral head collapse, and limited partial weight-bearing ability have led some surgeons to favor HA in select cases of extracapsular fractures.^4-6

There are many studies in the literature comparing HA and osteosynthesis in the surgical treatment of hip fractures.^7,8 These studies have primarily focused on extracapsular fractures, examining mortality and clinical outcomes, with differing results. While some report similar mortality rates between techniques, others suggest higher mortality rates in patients treated with arthroplasty.^7,8 However, a notable gap exists in the literature: no study has comprehensively examined and compared mortality outcomes for both intracapsular and extracapsular fractures treated with arthroplasty and osteosynthesis. Understanding how fracture type and surgical approach influence mortality is essential for guiding clinical decision-making in this high-risk population.

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the mortality outcomes of patients treated with HA or PFN for extracapsular fractures and patients treated with HA for intracapsular fractures. By addressing this gap, this study aims to provide a broader perspective on the interplay between fracture type, surgical technique, and mortality outcomes, offering valuable insights to optimize treatment strategies for elderly hip fracture patients.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary orthopedic center. Patient data were obtained from the hospital information system and national registry, covering hip fracture surgeries between January 2020 and December 2021. Additional details were retrieved via telephone contact when necessary. The manuscript was prepared in accordance with the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines for cohort studies.

Study Population

The study included all eligible patients who met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Therefore, a priori sample size calculation was not performed

The study included 210 patients aged ≥60 years who sustained either:

• An extracapsular proximal femur fracture (AO/OTA 31A1.2, 31A1.3, 31A2) treated with either HA or PFN,

• Or an intracapsular fracture treated with HA.

Patients were independently ambulatory before the fracture and had at least one year of follow-up.

The inclusion criterion regarding independent ambulation was chosen to ensure that all participants had a similar level of pre-fracture physical activity, providing a more standardized evaluation of postoperative outcomes.

The exclusion criteria were:

• AO/OTA 31A3 fractures,

• Pathological or multiple fractures,

• Pre-existing arthritis,

• Use of supplementary internal fixation devices (eg, cerclage wires, cables, or trochanteric plates) in conjunction with hemiarthroplasty.

Patients were categorized as: Group 1 (PFN for extracapsular hip fracture), Group 2 (HA for intracapsular hip fracture), Group 3 (HA for extracapsular hip fracture).

The detailed patient selection process is illustrated in the study flowchart (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the Study.

Surgical Techniques and Perioperative Management

All surgical procedures were performed by the same experienced surgical team to ensure consistency. For patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty, cementless arthroplasty with a bipolar head was utilized. For those treated with proximal femoral nailing (PFN), the Intertan PFN design was used in all cases. Postoperatively, all patients were mobilized with full weight-bearing as tolerated, starting within 48 h after surgery under the supervision of healthcare personnel. In our institution, short-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission (typically <24 h) is a common precautionary practice for elderly patients, based on preoperative assessment by anesthesiologists. Many patients are monitored in a first-level ICU unit located within the operating complex and are transferred to the ward as soon as clinically stable. As institutional protocol, early mobilization is attempted even in ICU-monitored patients, provided their condition permits.

All patients received low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis for four weeks following surgery. Preoperatively, all included patients were ambulatory without assistive devices and able to perform their daily activities independently, aligning with the inclusion criterion of pre-fracture physical activity independence.

In this study, postoperative blood transfusions were administered according to standardized clinical guidelines specifically tailored for elderly patients with hip fractures.

The primary triggers for transfusion, both before and after surgery, included hemoglobin levels falling below 8 g/dL, symptomatic anemia (eg, shortness of breath, dizziness, tachycardia, or chest pain), significant blood loss exceeding 500 mL, or the need for hemodynamic stabilization. Additionally, patients with cardiovascular or pulmonary insufficiency were also considered for transfusion under these criteria.

For those with a history of cardiovascular disease, a more conservative approach was taken, with transfusions initiated when hemoglobin levels dropped below 10 g/dL. This protocol was designed to optimize oxygen delivery and reduce potential complications, prioritizing safety and positive outcomes for this high-risk elderly population.

Data Collection

The clinical and demographic data collected for this study included the following parameters:

• Age, gender, and surgical site,

• Time from fracture to surgery,

• American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores,

• Presence of comorbidities,

• Mortality rate,

• Postoperative complications,

• Type of anesthesia used,

• Blood transfusion rate,

• Duration of surgery,

• Length of hospital stay, and

• ICU admission status.

ASA scores were recorded based on the preoperative evaluations conducted by the attending anesthesiologist, as part of routine anesthesia assessment.

The primary outcome measure of this study was 1-year all-cause mortality following hip fracture surgery. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complications (such as infection, dislocation, and reoperation), postoperative blood transfusion requirement, ICU admission, and length of hospital stay.

Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted with respect to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the authors’ institution prior to initiating the study (IRB decision date and no:01/11/2023, 2023/728). The study protocol ensured the confidentiality and anonymity of patient data by removing all personal identifiers during data collection and analysis. As this was a retrospective study utilizing pre-existing data, informed consent was not required according to the IRB guidelines.

Statistical Analyses

During our data analysis, we presented summary statistics, including frequencies (n) and percentages for categorical variables, as well as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or medians with interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables. To assess the distribution of the continuous data, we employed a combination of the Shapiro-Wilk test, histograms, and Q-Q plots. Subsequently, we applied various statistical tests, such as the Kruskal-Wallis or Chi-square tests, to compare variables among different surgery groups. For post hoc pairwise analysis, Chi-square test or Dwass Steel Critchlow Fligner (DSCF) test were peformed as appropriate. To investigate mortality predictors, we initially conducted univariate analyses, including the Student t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square, or Fisher’s exact test. Subsequently, univariate regression analyses were performed. Finally, multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted, and Wald test statistics along with hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were reported. All statistical analyses were performed using R-based statistical software, Jamovi Software (version 2.3). We established a significance threshold at P < 0.05 for all tests, considering results with P-values below 0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

The final study population included 210 elderly patients undergoing hip surgery after the exclusion of 73 patients. Among them, 54 (26%) belonged to Group 1, 78 (37%) to Group 2, and the remaining 78 (37%) to Group 3. The cohort exhibited a median age of 81 years (IQR: 75-86), with a predominant female representation at 65.7%. Surgical details indicated spinal anesthesia as the predominant choice (96.2%). Temporal aspects included a median time to surgery of 2 days, and 36.2% of patients received postoperative transfusions. Postoperative outcomes highlighted ICU admission in 30.5% of cases, a median hospital stay of 4 days, with a median postoperative hospitalization period of 2 days. The 1-year mortality rate was substantial at 37.6%, with a median time from surgery to death of 3 months. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of patients and surgeries.

Table 1.

The Baseline Characteristics of Patients and Surgeries.

Characteristics, n = 210	Value
Age, median (IQR)	81 (75- 86)
Female, n (%)	138 (65.7)
Left sided, n (%)	86 (40.9)
ASA score, n (%)
• ASA 2	47 (34.8)
• ASA 3	150 (71.4)
• ASA 4	38 (18.1)
Comorbities, n (%)
• Diabetes	33 (15.7)
• Pulmonary disease	38 (18.1)
• Nephrological disease	8 (3.8)
• Neurological disease	46 (21.9)
• Cardiac disease	160 (76.2)
• Dementia	22 (10.5)
Anesthesia Type, Spinal, n (%)	202 (96.2)
Time to surgery, median (IQR)	2 (1-5)
Post-op transfusion (unit), median (IQR)	0 (0-1)
Post-op transfusion, n (%)	76 (36.2)
Admission to ICU, n (%)	64 (30.5)
Hospital stay (day), median (IQR)	4 (3-5)
Post-op hospitalization (day), median (IQR)	2 (2-3)
Mortality (one year), n (%)	79 (37.6)
Surgery to death (month), median (IQR)	3 (2-4)

IQR: Inter Quantile Range, ICU: Intensive Care Unit.

Additionally, a detailed comparison among three distinct surgery groups undergoing hip fracture surgery is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

A Detailed Comparison of Characteristics Among Three Surgery Groups.

	Group 1 (N = 54)	Group 2 (N = 78)	Group 3 (N = 78)	P value
Age, median (IQR)	77.0 (67.8-82.5)	83.0 (73.2-86.8)	84.0 (78.0-88.8)	<0.001
Female, n (%)	44 (81.5)	46 (59.0)	48 (61.5)	0.017
Side, left, n (%)	30 (55.6)	28 (35.9)	28 (35.9)	0.041
ASA score, n (%)
• ASA 2	10 (18.5)	12 (15.4)	11 (14.1)	0.004
• ASA 3	34 (63.0)	54 (69.2)	54 (69.2)
• ASA 4	10 (18.5)	12 (15.4)	13 (16.7)
Comorbities, n (%)
• Diabetes	8 (14.8)	10 (12.8)	15 (19.2)	0.534
• Pulmonary disease	4 (7.4)	16 (20.5)	60 (76.9)	0.056
• Nephrological disease	4 (7.4)	2 (2.6)	2 (2.6)	0.277
• Neurological disease	8 (14.8)	20 (25.6)	18 (23.1)	0.319
• Cardiac disease	42 (77.8)	60 (76.9)	58 (74.4)	0.886
• Dementia	6 (11.1)	7 (9)	9 (11.5)	0.75
Anesthesia Type, Spinal, n (%)	52 (96.3)	72 (92.3)	78 (100)	0.043
Time to surgery, median (IQR)	2 (1-2)	2 (1-2)	2 (1-2)	0.553
Pre-op transfusion, n (%)	2 (3.7%)	4 (5.1%)	3 (3.8%)	0.90
Post-op transfusion (unit), median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0-0.0)	0.0 (0.0-0.8)	1.0 (0.5-1.5)	0.021
Post-op transfusion, n (%)	12 (22.2)	20 (25.6)	44 (56.4)	<0.001
Admission to ICU, n (%)	14 (25.9)	25 (32.1)	25 (32.1)	0.701
Total hospital stay (day), median (IQR)	3.0 (3.0-4.8)	4.0 (3.0-5.0)	4.0 (4.0-5.0)	<0.001
Surgery to discharge (hour), median (IQR)	48 (24-48)	60 (48-72)	72 (48-72)	<0.001
Mortality (1 year), n (%)	18 (33.3)	22 (28.2)	39 (50.0)	0.015
Surgery to death (month), median (IQR)	4.0 (2.0-4.0)	3.0 (3.0-4.8)	3.0 (2.0-4.0)	0.262

IQR: Inter Quantile Range, ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, ICU: Intensive care unit, Post-op: Postoperative. Statistically significant p values shown in bold (p < 0.05).

The median age varied significantly, with Group 1 at 77.0 years (IQR: 67.8-82.5), Group 2 at 83.0 years (IQR: 73.2-86.8), and Group 3 at 84.0 years (IQR: 78.0-88.8) (P < 0.001). The median age of patients in Group 1 was slightly lower than Group 2 and 3 (DSCF test, P = 0.029, and P < 0.001; respectively). Gender distribution, fracture side surgeries, ASA scores, complications, anesthesia types, postoperative transfusions, hospital stay, postoperative hospitalization duration, and 1-year mortality exhibited group-specific variations. Mortality rates in group 1 and group 2 were similar, but mortality in group 3 was higher than the others.

In Group 2, the distribution according to Garden classification was as follows: approximately 9.0% were classified as Garden I, 18.0% as Garden II, 29.5% as Garden III, and 43.6% as Garden IV resulting in nearly 73% of cases presenting as displaced fractures (Garden III and IV combined). However, statistical analysis revealed no significant association between Garden classification and 1-year mortality (P = 0.48).

A comprehensive comparison between patients who were alive and the deceased group was conducted in Table 3, revealing distinct characteristics.

Table 3.

Comparison of Clinical and Surgical Characteristics Between Survivors and Deceased Patients.

	Survivors (N = 131)	Non-survivors (N = 79)	P value
Age, median (IQR)	79.0 (71.0-85.0)	85.0 (78.5-89.0)	<0.001
Female, n (%)	96 (73.3)	42 (53.2)	0.005
Side, left, n (%)	49 (37.4)	37 (46.8)	0.230
Anesthesia Type, Spinal, n (%)	125 (95.4)	77 (97.5)	0.705
Surgery Groups, n (%)
• Group 1	36 (27.5)	18 (22.8)	0.015
• Group 2	56 (42.7)	22 (27.8)
• Group 3	39 (29.8)	39 (49.4)
ASA score, n (%)
• ASA 2	20 (15.3)	2 (2.5)	0.014
• ASA 3	88 (67.2)	62 (78.5)
• ASA 4	23 (17.6)	15 (19.0)
Comorbidities, n (%)
• Diabetes	0 (0.0)	33 (41.8)	<0.001
• Pulmonary disease	24 (18.3)	14 (17.7)	1.000
• Nephrological disease	6 (4.6)	2 (2.5)	0.705
• Neurological disease	26 (19.8)	20 (25.3)	0.450
• Cardiac disease	103 (78.6)	57 (72.2)	0.368
• Dementia	12 (9.2)	10 (12.7)	0.45
Post-op complication, n (%)	2 (1.5)	5 (6.3)	0.060^a
Time to surgery, median (IQR)	2 (1-2)	1 (1-2)	0.054
Post-op transfusion (unit), median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0-1.0)	0.0 (0.0-1.0)	0.017
Post-op transfusion, n (%)	40 (30.5)	36 (45.6)	0.028
Admission to ICU	29 (22.1)	35 (44.3)	0.001
Hospital stay (day), median (IQR)	4.0 (3.0-5.0)	4.0 (4.0-5.0)	0.100
Post-op hospitalization (hour), median (IQR)	48.0 (48.0-72.0)	72.0 (48.0-72.0)	0.002

IQR: Inter Quantile Range, ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, ICU: Intensive care unit, Post-op: Postoperative. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical tests were two-sided. Statistically significant p values shown in bold (p < 0.05).

^aFisher Exact Test.

The deceased had a significantly higher median age of 85.0 years (IQR: 78.5-89.0) compared to survivors (79.0 (71.0-85.0), (P < 0.001). Gender distribution, surgical group classifications, comorbidities, ICU admission, postoperative hospitalization duration, and postoperative transfusion significantly differed between the two groups. Moreover, Table 4, presenting the results of univariate and multivariate regression analyses, highlighted crucial predictors of 1-year mortality.

Table 4.

Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Predictors for 1-Year Mortality in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery.

	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	Wald test	HR (95% CI)	Wald test	HR (95% CI)
Age, median (IQR)	<0.001	1.09 (1.05- 1.13)	<0.001	1.11 (1.05- 1.17)
Female, n (%)	0.005	0.41 (0.23- 0.74)	<0.001	0.26 (0.12- 0.55)
Surgery Groups, n (%)
• Group 1 in reference to others	0.451	0.78 (0.41- 1.49)
• Group 2 in reference to others	0.032	0.52 (0.28- 0.94)	0.006	0.26 (0.10- 0.68)
• Group 3 in reference to others	0.005	2.30 (1.29- 4.10)	0.259	0.59 (0.24- 1.47)
• Group 2 in reference to Group 1	0.529	0.79 (0.37- 1.66)
• Group 3 in reference to Group 1	0.059	2.00 (0.97- 4.11)
ASA score, n (%)	0.063	1.67 (0.97-2.87)	0.330	0.69 (0.33- 1.45)
Diabetes	0.986	3.29 (0.0-inf)
Time to surgery, median (IQR)	0.077	0.70 (0.48- 1.04)
Post-op transfusion (unit), median (IQR)	0.025	1.56 (1.06- 2.29)
Post-op transfusion, n (%)	0.029	1.90 (1.07- 3.40)	0.117	1.74 (0.87- 3.49)
Admission to ICU	<0.001	2.80 (1.53- 5.13)	0.842	1.08 (0.50- 2.33)
Postop complication, n (%)	0.083	4.36 (0.82- 23.0)	0.595	2.31 (0.11- 50.4)
Postop hospitalization (hour), median (IQR)	0.003	1.02 (1.01- 1.03)	0.184	1.01 (0.99- 1.02)

IQR: Inter Quantile Range, ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, ICU: Intensive care unit, Post-op: Postoperative. Statistically significant p values shown in bold (p < 0.05).

Age consistently emerged as a robust predictor, with each additional year associated with a 9% higher risk in the univariate analysis (Wald test P < 0.001; HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.05-1.13) and a slightly higher risk in the multivariate analysis (P < 0.001; HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.05-1.17). Female gender exhibited a protective effect, with a statistically significant hazard ratio of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.23-0.74, P = 0.005) in the univariate analysis and a more pronounced effect (HR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12-0.55, P < 0.001) in the multivariate analysis. Surgical group classifications revealed distinctive risk patterns, with Group 2 indicating a lower risk (P = 0.032; HR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28-0.94) and Group 3 associated with a higher risk (P = 0.005; HR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.29-4.10) in the univariate analysis. These associations persisted in the multivariate analysis only for Group 2 (P = 0.006; HR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.10-0.68).

Postoperative complications are shown in Table 5. In Group 3, deep infection developed in 3 patients (one after revision surgery). Two patients had early growth of MRSA and E. Coli. Since the infection continued despite debridement, the prosthesis was removed, and a spacer was applied. Unfortunately, both of these patients passed away within the postoperative first three months. In one patient in the second group, prosthesis dislocation occurred on the first postoperative day, and closed reduction under sedation was performed. No dislocation occurred again in the subsequent period. Dislocation occurred in three patients in the third group. All of these occurred in the early postoperative period. One of the patients could be reduced closed. In the other two patients, rotation of the femoral stem was observed during open reduction and was revised with a cemented femoral stem. One of these patients later developed a deep infection. The patient recovered with debridement and antibiotic treatment and died two months after the surgery. One patient with PFN was revised due to improper reduction and incorrect screw placement. It was reduced again, the screw position was corrected, and proper union was achieved. The periprosthetic fracture occurred during surgery in only two patients in Group 2. These were in the form of cracks in the calcar area and were treated with cables. There were no problems in the following period. No periprosthetic fractures occurred in any group within one year after surgery.

Table 5.

Postoperative Complications.

	Group 1 (n = 54)	Group 2 (n = 78)	Group 3 (n = 78)
Deep infection, n (%)	—	—	3 (3.8%)
Dislocation, n (%)	—	1 (1.3%)	3 (3.8%)
Cut out, n (%)	1 (1.9%)	—	—
Intraoperative periprosthetic fracture, n (%)	—	2 (2.6%)	—
Postoperative periprosthetic fracture, n (%)	—	—	—
Re-operation, n (%)	1 (1.9%)	—	4 (5.1%)

Discussion

This study examined 1-year mortality in elderly patients with hip fractures, focusing on both fracture type and surgical approach. Among patients with extracapsular fractures, PFN (Group 1) was associated with lower mortality and fewer complications than HA (Group 3). When HA was used for intracapsular fractures (Group 2), mortality was significantly lower than in Group 3, despite similar demographic and clinical characteristics. These findings suggest that fracture morphology, in combination with the surgical burden of HA, may contribute to poorer outcomes in extracapsular cases.

There remains a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the optimal treatment for extracapsular hip fractures. Çiloğlu et al reported that HA may be linked to lower mortality and fewer complications in such fractures.⁹ However, most evidence supports PFN due to its biomechanical stability and reduced surgical trauma.⁹ Our findings align with this consensus. Although functional scores were not evaluated in this study, mortality differences highlight the need to tailor surgical interventions to the fracture type and the physiological status of elderly patients.^10–13

Studies comparing PFN and HA have demonstrated improved morbidity profiles with PFN, even though early postoperative recovery may be better with HA.^14-16 Görmeli et al also found lower 1-year mortality with PFN despite better early function with HA.¹⁷ Similar conclusions were drawn in studies comparing PFN, HA, and sliding hip screws, where HA was associated with higher short- and long-term mortality.¹⁸ The significantly higher mortality in Group 3 likely results from both procedural complexity and fracture characteristics. HA for extracapsular fractures typically requires wider incisions, greater soft tissue dissection, and longer operating times, which impose additional physiological stress. To isolate the effect of fracture type from patient health status, we compared these patients to Group 2, who underwent the same procedure but had intracapsular fractures. Despite similar age, ASA scores, and comorbidities, Group 3 showed substantially higher mortality. This reinforces the role of fracture morphology and surgical complexity in patient outcomes.

Regression analyses confirmed that age and male sex were independent predictors of mortality. While the impact of HA in extracapsular fractures diminished in multivariate models, the trend remained. This supports the idea that fracture location and surgical invasiveness influence mortality beyond baseline health factors. Dementia, analyzed separately, showed no significant correlation with mortality or treatment group allocation.

Regarding the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, the choice between THA and HA remains debated. While THA is increasingly favored for its superior long-term outcomes, HA is still commonly used, particularly in older adults where minimizing operative time and surgical stress is a priority. A recent international analysis by Foote et al demonstrated that the decision between THA and HA is nearly evenly split globally, with each option representing approximately 50% of surgical treatments for geriatric displaced femoral neck fractures.¹⁹

In our institution, HA is the standard approach for patients over 70 years of age, regardless of pre-fracture ambulatory status. Therefore, the use of HA in this cohort should not be interpreted as a proxy for poor functional baseline but as a reflection of institutional guidelines. The elevated mortality in certain subgroups likely reflects procedure-related burdens rather than selection bias for frail patients.

Overall, our study highlights the importance of selecting the appropriate surgical technique based on fracture type. PFN appears to offer clear advantages in extracapsular fractures due to reduced operative trauma and preservation of the native bone structure. In contrast, HA, though effective for intracapsular fractures, presents higher risks when applied to extracapsular cases. Nonetheless, HA remains an essential option in revision settings, such as after failed PFN.

Interestingly, the median hospital stay in our cohort was only two days, even though nearly one-third of patients were temporarily monitored in the ICU. This brief hospitalization duration reflects our institutional and national healthcare strategies, which prioritize early discharge supported by home-based rehabilitation services. In our country, elderly patients are commonly cared for at home by family members, with support from a well-structured national home healthcare system that provides postoperative wound care, physical therapy, and medical supervision. Importantly, all patients included in this study were independently ambulatory prior to fracture and surgery, ensuring a relatively high level of pre-fracture functional capacity. Postoperative discharge decisions were made only for patients whose vital signs were clinically stable, in accordance with institutional protocols. While such a short hospital stay may seem unusual from an international perspective, it has not been associated with increased early mortality or hospital readmissions in our cohort. This practice highlights the importance of adapting perioperative management strategies to the sociocultural context and available healthcare infrastructure.

Our findings also emphasize the anatomical and biomechanical differences between intracapsular and extracapsular fractures. HA-treated intracapsular fractures showed more favorable outcomes. This suggests a lower physiological burden associated with the procedure in this context. Treatment decisions should thus consider both fracture characteristics and individual patient factors.

Study Limitations: This study has limitations inherent to its retrospective and single-center design, which may restrict generalizability. Functional outcomes and quality-of-life metrics were not assessed. A priori power analysis was not performed, as all eligible patients within the study period were included. Although ASA scores and comorbidities were similar across groups, unmeasured confounders may still have influenced outcomes. Additionally, comprehensive indices such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index could not be applied, and cancer history was not reliably available due to incomplete records. These factors limit our ability to fully assess long-term prognostic influences.

Future multi-center prospective studies with larger patient cohorts and functional evaluations are warranted to validate our findings and further explore cognitive and clinical outcomes associated with different surgical techniques.

By including patients treated with both HA and PFN across intracapsular and extracapsular fracture types, this study offers a practical perspective on optimizing surgical decisions in elderly hip fracture patients. Individualized approaches that consider fracture morphology and surgical invasiveness are essential to improving survival and recovery in this high-risk population.

Conclusion

PFN should be prioritized as the first-line treatment for extracapsular hip fractures due to its lower mortality and complication rates compared to HA. While HA shows lower mortality in femoral neck fractures, it is associated with higher mortality in extracapsular fractures. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring surgical decisions to fracture type to improve outcomes in elderly patients.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Fatih Günaydın

Yusuf Bayram

Mahmud Aydın

Ali Çelik

Ethical Statement

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection were performed by Fatih Günaydın, Yusuf Bayram. Analysis were performed by Mahmud Aydın and Ali Çelik. Fatih Günaydın wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Atik

Hangody

. Total hip replacement or hip hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly? Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2022;33(3):705-706.

Bennett-Brown

Morgan

Dattani

. Hip fractures. Br J Hosp Med. 2020;81(8):1-10.

Wang

Liu

Jiang

. Comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw internal fixation on serum markers in elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019;29(7):644-648.

Jacofsky

Haidukewych

Zhang

Sim

. Complications and results of arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of malignant pathologic fractures of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:52-56.

Chan

Gill

. Cemented hemiarthroplasties for elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;Feb(371):206-215.

Rodop

Kiral

Kaplan

Akmaz

. Primary bipolar hemiprosthesis for unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop. 2002;26(4):233-237.

Gölge

Pazarci

Kılınç

, et al. The treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: comparison of PFN and hemiarthroplasty 3-year mortality study. Acta Orthop Belg. 2016;82(3):508-515.

Kumar

Rajnish

Sharma

Dhillon

. Proximal femoral nailing is superior to hemiarthroplasty in AO/OTA A2 and A3 intertrochanteric femur fractures in the elderly: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2020;44(4):623-633.

Çiloğlu

Karaali

Kuşvuran Özkan

Ekiz

. Distally-fixed non-modular monoblock fluted long-stem hemiarthroplasty versus proximal femoral nailing for elderly patients with an osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture: a retrospective comparative study. Hip Int. 2022;32(1):124-130.

10.

Jolly

Bansal

Pagadala

. Comparison of complications and functional results of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur treated with proximal femur nails and cemented hemiarthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(2):296-301.

11.

Geiger

Zimmermann-Stenzel

Heisel

Lehner

Daecke

. Trochanteric fractures in the elderly: the influence of primary hip arthroplasty on 1-year mortality. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127(10):959-966.

12.

Zhou

Liu

Zhen

, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty for unstable femoral intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):500.

13.

Ekinci

Gürbüz

Batın

Kahraman

Doğar

Kaya Erten

. A multicenter intertrochanteric fracture study in the elderly: hemiarthroplasty versus proximal femoral nailing. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2020;31(2):209-217.

14.

Ucpunar

Camurcu

Çöbden

Sofu

Kis

Demirel

. Comparative evaluation of postoperative health status and functional outcome in patients treated with either proximal femoral nail or hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fracture. J Orthop Surg. 2019;27(3):2309499019864426.

15.

Esen

Dur

Ataoğlu

Ayanoğlu

Turanlı

. Evaluation of proximal femoral nail-antirotation and cemented, bipolar hemiarthroplasty with calcar replacement in treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in terms of mortality and morbidity ratios. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2017;28(1):35-40.

16.

Hongku

Woratanarat

Nitiwarangkul

Rattanasiri

Thakkinstian

. Fracture fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2022;108(1):102838.

17.

Görmeli

Korkmaz

Görmeli

Adanaş

Karataş

Şimşek

. Comparison of femur intertrochanteric fracture fixation with hemiarthroplasty and proximal femoral nail systems. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2015;21(6):503-508.

18.

Canbeyli

İD

Çırpar

Oktaş

Çoban

. Analysis of factors among 30-day and 1-year mortality rates in patients with borderline stable-unstable intertrochanteric hip fracture. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2021;55(1):16-21.

19.

Foote

Soni

Patel

Moore

Szatkowski

. Factors that influence surgical decision-making for geriatric displaced femoral neck fractures: bullet health analysis (BHA) I: worldwide orthopaedic research collaboration: leveraging big data (WORLD) I. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024;34(6):3005-3013.

Does Fracture Type or Surgical Technique Influence Mortality in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients?

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Patients and Methods

Study Population

Surgical Techniques and Perioperative Management

Data Collection

Ethical Considerations

Statistical Analyses

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Statement

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References