{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,1]],"date-time":"2026-10-01T12:48:34Z","timestamp":1790858914916,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":29,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"7","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,7]]},"abstract":"\n OBJECTIVES:<\/jats:title>\n To compare the primary outcome of surgical time for long, distally unlocked, intramedullary nails (LUIMNs) versus short, distally locked, intramedullary nails (SLIMNs) and to compare secondary outcomes of blood loss, peri-implant fractures, reoperation events, and mortality between these 2 groups.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n METHODS:<\/jats:title>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Design:<\/jats:title>\n Retrospective cohort study.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Setting:<\/jats:title>\n One Level I Trauma Center and one community hospital.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Patient Selection Criteria:<\/jats:title>\n Patients older than 18 years treated with SLIMNs or LUIMNs for peritrochanteric hip fractures, OTA\/AO 31A1, 31A2, 31A3, were included.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Outcome Measures and Comparisons:<\/jats:title>\n The primary outcome was surgical time for LUIMNs versus SLIMNs. Secondary outcomes were estimated blood loss, peri-implant fracture rates, reoperation for nonunion or shortening, all-cause reoperation, and mortality within 2 weeks and 3 months of surgery for LUIMNs versus SLIMNs.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n RESULTS:<\/jats:title>\n \n There were 602 patients in the LUIMN group (68.6% female, 31.4% male), with an average age of 77.3 (range, 29\u2013108) years. There were 142 patients in the SLIMN group (63.4% female, 36.6% male) with an average age of 75.3 (range 33\u2013101) years. Average OR time for LUIMNs was 46.9 minutes compared with 53.7 minutes for SLIMNs (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n < 0.001). Peri-implant fracture rates were 0.6% for LUIMNs and 4.1% for SLIMNs (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.012). There was no difference in estimated blood loss between LUIMNs (103.8 \u00b1 55.1) and SLIMNs (104.3 \u00b1 87.8); bootstrap analysis showed a mean difference of 0.3 mL (95% confidence interval \u221213.7 to 16.3;\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.97). There was no difference in all-cause reoperation (1.9% LUIMNs and 4.9% SLIMNs,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.113), reoperation for nonunion (0.2% LUIMNs, 0% SLIMNs,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 1.00), or reoperation for shortening (0.75% LUIMNs, 0% SLIMNs,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.44). There was no significant difference in mortality at 2 weeks (2.8% LUIMNs, 2.5% SLIMNs,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.891) and 3 months (7.1% LUIMNs, 9.8% SLIMNs,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.292).\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n CONCLUSIONS:<\/jats:title>\n For peritrochanteric hip fractures, LUIMNs reduced operative times and lowered the risk of peri-implant fracture compared with SLIMNs. Accordingly, they may be a preferred treatment option to reduce the risk of future fractures.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:<\/jats:title>\n Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description for levels of evidence.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1097\/bot.0000000000003155","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,10]],"date-time":"2026-02-10T14:00:36Z","timestamp":1770732036000},"page":"353-359","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Long Distally Unlocked Hip Nails Versus Short Distally Locked Nails for Peritrochanteric Fractures: Operative Characteristics and Peri-implant Fracture Risks"],"prefix":"10.1097","volume":"40","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0003-7209-6144","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Mark","family":"Ayoub","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2775-2037","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Jetha","family":"Tallapaneni","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-9963-6778","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Emilio","family":"Robles","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2774-3202","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Yeng","family":"Vue","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7316-2313","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Eric","family":"Lindvall","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","reference":[{"key":"R1-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"119","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000000420","article-title":"Short versus long intramedullary nails in the treatment of peritrochanteric hip fractures: incidence of ipsilateral fractures and costs associated with each implant","volume":"30","author":"Lindvall","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R2-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S10","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000000286","article-title":"Nailing intertrochanteric hip fractures: short versus long; locked versus nonlocked","volume":"29","author":"Kanakaris","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R3-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e202","DOI":"10.3928\/01477447-20190118-03","article-title":"Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for fixation of stable versus unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures at a level 1 trauma center","volume":"42","author":"Hulet","year":"2019","journal-title":"Orthopedics"},{"key":"R4-20260612","first-page":"209","article-title":"Failure of short versus long cephalomedullary nail after intertrochanteric hip fractures","volume":"18","author":"Bovbjerg","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R5-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e185","DOI":"10.1097\/OI9.0000000000000185","article-title":"Short cephalomedullary nail toggle: a closer examination","volume":"5","author":"George","year":"2022","journal-title":"OTA Int"},{"key":"R6-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"23997","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-021-03210-1","article-title":"Clinical outcomes following long versus short cephalomedullary devices for fixation of extracapsular hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"11","author":"Tan","year":"2021","journal-title":"Sci Rep"},{"key":"R7-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"83","DOI":"10.3928\/01477447-20161116-01","article-title":"Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for pertrochanteric hip fractures","volume":"40","author":"Frisch","year":"2017","journal-title":"Orthopedics"},{"key":"R8-20260612","first-page":"373","article-title":"Short versus long intramedullary nails for intertrochanteric hip fracture: meta-analysis","volume":"68","author":"Domenech","year":"2024","journal-title":"Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol"},{"key":"R9-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"480","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000001553","article-title":"Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for pertrochanteric hip fractures: a randomized prospective study","volume":"33","author":"Shannon","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R10-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"685","DOI":"10.1016\/j.otsr.2017.04.003","article-title":"Long and short intramedullary nails for fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"103","author":"Zhang","year":"2017","journal-title":"Orthop Traumatol Surg Res"},{"key":"R11-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"391","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000000036","article-title":"Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures in patients older than 65 years","volume":"28","author":"Kleweno","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R12-20260612","first-page":"e21.00322","article-title":"Comparison of short, intermediate, and long cephalomedullary nail length outcomes in elderly intertrochanteric femur fractures","volume":"6","author":"Womble","year":"2022","journal-title":"J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev"},{"key":"R13-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e96","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0b013e3182a7131c","article-title":"Short versus long intramedullary nails for treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1 and A2)","volume":"28","author":"Boone","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R14-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"318","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0b013e31826fc11f","article-title":"Treatment of pertrochanteric fractures (OTA 31-A1 and A2): long versus short cephalomedullary nailing","volume":"27","author":"Hou","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R15-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"461","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-020-03444-6","article-title":"Distal locked versus unlocked intramedullary nailing for stable intertrochanteric fractures, a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"21","author":"Li","year":"2020","journal-title":"BMC Musculoskelet Disord"},{"key":"R16-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"373","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0b013e31827cd5bd","article-title":"Is distal locking necessary? A biomechanical investigation of intramedullary nailing constructs for intertrochanteric fractures","volume":"27","author":"Gallagher","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R17-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"21514593251327910","DOI":"10.1177\/21514593251327910","article-title":"Advantages of distal unlocked proximal femoral nails in the treatment of stable intertrochanteric fractures in geriatric patients: a single-center comparative randomized study","volume":"16","author":"Sa\u011flam","year":"2025","journal-title":"Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil"},{"issue":"suppl 4","key":"R18-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S98","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2016.07.038","article-title":"Is distal locking with short intramedullary nails necessary in stable pertrochanteric fractures? A prospective, multicentre, randomised study","volume":"47","author":"Caiaffa","year":"2016","journal-title":"Injury"},{"key":"R19-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"414","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2021.02.007","article-title":"Distal locking of short cephalomedullary nails decreases varus collapse in unstable intertrochanteric fractures\u2014a biomechanical analysis","volume":"52","author":"Tisherman","year":"2021","journal-title":"Injury"},{"issue":"suppl 1","key":"R20-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S1","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000001063","article-title":"Fracture and dislocation classification compendium\u20142018","volume":"32","author":"Meinberg","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R21-20260612","first-page":"712","article-title":"Intertrochanteric fractures: ten tips to improve results","volume":"91","author":"Haidukewych","year":"2009","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"R22-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"372","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-200203000-00007","article-title":"Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study","volume":"84","author":"Sadowski","year":"2002","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"R23-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"216","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-197961020-00009","article-title":"Analysis of six hundred and twenty-two intertrochanteric hip fractures","volume":"61","author":"Kyle","year":"1979","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"R24-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"421","DOI":"10.1302\/2058-5241.5.190045","article-title":"Distal interlocking for short trochanteric nails: static, dynamic or no locking? Review of the literature and decision algorithm","volume":"5","author":"Buruian","year":"2020","journal-title":"EFORT Open Rev"},{"key":"R26-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2768","DOI":"10.1007\/s11999-013-2948-0","article-title":"Which implant is better for treating reverse obliquity fractures of the proximal femur: a standard or long nail?","volume":"471","author":"Okcu","year":"2013","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"key":"R27-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"557","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000002664","article-title":"Geriatric intertrochanteric fractures: what is the optimal follow-up period?","volume":"37","author":"Green","year":"2023","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"R28-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2790","DOI":"10.1111\/trf.12119","article-title":"Comparison of visually estimated blood loss with direct hemoglobin measurement in multilevel spine surgery","volume":"53","author":"Guinn","year":"2013","journal-title":"Transfusion"},{"key":"R29-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.1213\/ANE.0000000000002121","article-title":"Estimating blood loss","volume":"125","author":"Goodnough","year":"2017","journal-title":"Anesth Analg"},{"key":"R30-20260612","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"280","DOI":"10.1213\/ANE.0000000000001992","article-title":"Determination of perioperative blood loss: accuracy or approximation?","volume":"125","author":"Lopez-Picado","year":"2017","journal-title":"Anesth Analg"}],"container-title":["Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.lww.com\/10.1097\/BOT.0000000000003155","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,12]],"date-time":"2026-06-12T13:00:13Z","timestamp":1781269213000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.lww.com\/10.1097\/BOT.0000000000003155"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7]]},"references-count":29,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/bot.0000000000003155","relation":{},"ISSN":["0890-5339","1531-2291"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0890-5339","type":"print"},{"value":"1531-2291","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2026-01-18","name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}