Objective: 

To compare fracture patterns and associated injuries for young patients with high- versus low-energy intertrochanteric hip fractures and to report on factors associated with complications after surgical fixation of high-energy fractures.

Design: 

Retrospective comparative study.

Setting: 

Academic Level 1 Trauma Center.

Patients: 

A total of 103 patients 50 years of age or younger were included: 80 high-energy fractures and 23 low-energy fractures.

Intervention: 

Cephalomedullary nailing (N = 92) or a sliding hip screw (N = 11).

Main Outcome Measures: 

Radiographic characteristics of fracture morphology, implant position, and reduction quality and postoperative complications were the main outcome measures.

Results: 

Compared with young patients with low-energy fractures, those with high-energy fractures had more fracture comminution (P = 0.013) and higher ISS scores (P < 0.003) and were more likely to require open reduction (P < 0.001). Patients with low-energy fractures from a ground-level fall had higher rates of alcohol abuse (0.032), cirrhosis (0.010), and chronic steroid use (0.048). Overall reoperation rate for high-energy fractures was 7%, including 2 IT fracture nonunions (5%) and 1 deep infection (2%). For high-energy fractures, ASA class (P = 0.026), anterior lag screw position (P = 0.001), and varus malreduction (P < 0.001) were associated with malunion. Four-part fracture (OTA/AO 31A2.3/Jensen 5) (P = 0.028) and residual calcar gap >3 mm (P = 0.03) were associated with reoperation.

Conclusions: 

Surgical treatment of high-energy IT fractures in young patients is technically demanding with potential untoward outcomes. Injury characteristics and severity are significantly different for young patients with high-energy IT fractures compared with low-energy fractures. For young patients with a high-energy IT fracture, surgeons can anticipate a high rate of associated injuries and complex fracture patterns requiring open reduction. For young patients with a low-energy IT fracture, comanagement with a hospitalist or a geriatrician should be considered because they may be physiologically older.

Level of Evidence: 

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.