Table 3

Characteristics of the 4 included trials comparing greater trochanter with piriformis entry in intramedullary nailing of the femoral shaft

StudyStudy designFunctional measurementTreatment groupsNo. femursNailing techniqueMean age, yr% maleBMIISS% follow-upMean follow-up (range), mo
Stannard at al. (9)Level I randomizedWOMACTrochanteric59
Piriformis55
Archdeacon et al. (24)Level I randomizedTrochanteric47
Piriformis*
Ricci et al. (8)Level II prospective cohortLower extremity measureGreater trochanter (Trigen TAN, Smith-Nephew)38Fracture table28 (16–88)6624 (10–80)8410 (7–25)
Piriformis (Trigen FAN, Smith-Nephew)53Fracture table29 (16–79)5524 (18–45)
Starr et al. (4)Level II quasirandomizedHarris hip scoreTrochanteric (Long Gamma Nail version 2, Howmedica)17Fracture table37 (19–50)29 (20–55)15 (9–48)7616 (12–29)
Piriformis (Russel-Taylor Recon Nail, Smith-Nephew)17Fracture table32 (19–45)26 (19–56)15 (9–29)8815 (12–28)
  • BMI = body mass index; FAN = femoral antegrade nail; ISS = injury severity score; TAN = trochanteric antegrade nail; WOMAC = Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index.

  • * Not reported.