Treatment Outcomes of Dynamic Hip Screws Versus Short Intramedullary Nails for Extra-capsular Fragility Hip Fractures and Their Coding Audit.

Introduction In the UK, hip fractures are a common reason for presentations to the emergency departments, which places significant pressure on NHS hospitals, appropriate choice of an implant to treat the hip fracture is one among many other factors that affect patients' outcomes. This audit aims to identify and compare the outcome difference between the dynamic hip screws (DHS) and short cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of extracapsular hip fractures. Methods In a retrospective study of 52 patients admitted as a result of hip fractures in one NHS trust, data collection was done from the patients' records using the trust's online system, we studied different variables to compare the outcome difference between DHS and short intramedullary (IM) nails, two senior authors interpreted the patients' X-rays and verified the coding and classification of the neck of femur fractures. Results This retrospective study examined 52 extracapsular hip fracture cases, including 37 females and 15 males. Forty-six (88%) of the included patients were ASA 3 and 4 (American Society of Anesthesiologists), and the average days to discharge from therapies were 8.4 (SD-+ 4) days compared to 11 (SD-+ 5.2) days for short IM nails and DHS, respectively (P= 0.03), the 30-day mortality rate for short nails was 7% (n= 4/52) patients and 6% (n= 3/52) for DHS (P =0.69). The mean operating times for the different implants were 58.11 (SD-+ 15.1) minutes for DHS and 58.03 (SD-+ 23.2) minutes for the short nail (P =0.98). Compliance with the national guidelines for providing an appropriate operation to treat hip fractures initially went from 63% (n=33/52) initially to 73% (n=38/52). This means that more patients who are appropriate for nailing are being treated with IM nails. Conclusion Short IM nails are associated with faster hospital discharge; this fact may be reflecting the lower postoperative pain as a result of avoiding soft tissue dissection associated with extramedullary devices. keeping in mind that IM devices have mechanical advantages over sliding hip screws; hence, they are more commonly used for more complex fracture patterns, leading to nearly similar outcomes when compared to extramedullary devices, this can be a source of bias in retrospective studies, larger randomized trials may lead to different outcomes.