Hip fractures are among the most common and serious injuries affecting the elderly population. With increasing life expectancy worldwide, the incidence of geriatric hip fractures continues to rise and represents a major burden on healthcare systems. These fractures are associated with substantial morbidity, loss of independence, and increased mortality rates, particularly among frail elderly individuals (1).

The majority of geriatric hip fractures occur as a result of low-energy trauma, most commonly falls from standing height. Age-related osteoporosis, decreased bone mineral density, and impaired balance contribute significantly to the increased susceptibility of elderly individuals to such injuries (2). Hip fractures are typically categorized into femoral neck fractures and intertrochanteric fractures, each requiring specific surgical management strategies.

Surgical treatment remains the standard of care for most geriatric hip fractures because early fixation allows rapid mobilization and reduces complications associated with prolonged bed rest, such as pneumonia, pressure ulcers, and venous thromboembolism (3). Various fixation devices including dynamic hip screws, intramedullary nails, and hemiarthroplasty implants are commonly used depending on the fracture type and patient characteristics.

Despite advances in surgical techniques and implant design, implant failure remains an important complication following fixation of geriatric hip fractures. Implant failure can manifest as cut-out of fixation screws, implant breakage, nonunion, or collapse of the fracture site. Such complications often require revision surgery and may lead to significant functional impairment (4).

Several factors have been reported to contribute to implant failure. These include poor bone quality due to osteoporosis, unstable fracture patterns, inadequate fracture reduction, and improper implant placement. Patient-related factors such as advanced age, comorbid conditions, and delayed surgery may also influence outcomes (5).

Radiological parameters such as tip–apex distance, fracture alignment, and implant positioning have also been associated with the risk of mechanical failure after hip fracture fixation (6). Careful surgical planning and adherence to biomechanical principles are therefore essential to minimize complications.

Given the increasing number of hip fractures in the aging population, identifying predictors of implant failure is important for improving surgical outcomes and guiding treatment strategies. The aim of the present study was to evaluate patient-related and surgical factors associated with implant failure in geriatric hip fracture patients treated at a tertiary care hospital.

Study design and setting This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care orthopedic center to evaluate predictors of implant failure in geriatric hip fractures. Medical records of patients treated between January 2019 and December 2023 were reviewed. The hospital maintains a comprehensive electronic medical record system that includes surgical reports, radiographic images, and postoperative follow-up data. The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee prior to the initiation of data collection. Because the research involved retrospective analysis of existing clinical data, the requirement for informed patient consent was waived. Patient confidentiality was maintained by anonymizing all identifying information. Study population Patients aged 65 years and older who underwent surgical fixation for hip fractures during the study period were eligible for inclusion. Both femoral neck fractures and intertrochanteric fractures treated with internal fixation devices were included in the analysis. Patients with pathological fractures, high-energy trauma, previous hip surgery, or incomplete medical records were excluded from the study. Patients who were lost to follow-up before fracture union or implant failure assessment were also excluded. Data collection Patient demographic variables including age, sex, and mechanism of injury were recorded. Clinical variables included fracture type, bone mineral density status, and comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Surgical variables included type of implant used, quality of fracture reduction, tip–apex distance, and operative time. Postoperative outcomes including implant failure, fracture union, and need for revision surgery were obtained from follow-up clinical and radiological records. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and treatment outcomes. Continuous variables were presented as means with standard deviations, while categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Comparative analysis between patients with and without implant failure was performed using appropriate statistical tests. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent predictors of implant failure. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant

Patient characteristics

A total of 128 geriatric patients with hip fractures were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 76.3 years, and the majority were female. Most fractures occurred following low-energy falls at home.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics

These findings reflect the typical demographic pattern of geriatric hip fractures.

Implant failure incidence

Implant failure occurred in 18 patients (14.1%). The majority of failures were observed in patients with severe osteoporosis and unstable fracture patterns.

Table 2. Risk Factors for Implant Failure

Patients with implant failure demonstrated higher prevalence of osteoporosis and inadequate fracture reduction.

Multivariate analysis

Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified several independent predictors associated with implant failure.

Table 3. Multivariate Predictors of Implant Failure

These findings indicate that both patient-related and surgical factors contribute to implant failure risk.

Implant failure following fixation of geriatric hip fractures remains a significant clinical concern. In the present study, the incidence of implant failure was approximately 14%, which is consistent with previously reported rates in the orthopedic literature (7). Implant failure can significantly compromise postoperative recovery and often necessitates revision surgery.

One of the most important findings of this study was the association between osteoporosis and implant failure. Osteoporotic bone provides poor mechanical support for fixation devices, increasing the risk of screw cut-out or implant loosening. Several previous studies have demonstrated that decreased bone mineral density significantly increases the likelihood of fixation failure in elderly patients (8).

Fracture stability also plays a critical role in determining surgical outcomes. Unstable fracture patterns such as comminuted intertrochanteric fractures are more prone to mechanical failure due to the difficulty in achieving stable fixation (9). In the present study, unstable fractures were associated with increased risk of implant failure.

Another significant predictor identified in this study was poor fracture reduction during surgery. Achieving anatomical alignment and stable fixation is essential for successful healing of hip fractures. Previous studies have emphasized that inadequate reduction increases mechanical stress on implants and may lead to early failure (10).

Radiological parameters such as tip–apex distance have also been shown to influence fixation stability. Proper placement of fixation screws within the femoral head reduces the risk of implant cut-out. Surgeons must therefore carefully consider implant positioning during surgical fixation (11).

The findings of this study highlight the importance of optimizing both patient-related and surgical factors to minimize the risk of implant failure. Strategies such as preoperative assessment of bone quality, careful surgical planning, and adherence to biomechanical principles may improve outcomes in geriatric hip fracture patients (12).

Although the study provides valuable insights, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The retrospective design may introduce selection bias, and the study was conducted at a single institution. Larger prospective studies are required to further validate these findings (13–15).

Implant failure in geriatric hip fractures is influenced by multiple factors including osteoporosis, fracture instability, and surgical reduction quality. Identifying high-risk patients and optimizing surgical techniques may reduce the incidence of fixation failure. Improved perioperative management and careful implant positioning remain essential for achieving successful outcomes in elderly hip fracture patients.

1. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ III. Hip fractures in the elderly: a worldwide projection. Lancet. 1992;339(8792):121–125.
2. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18(1 Suppl):57S–63S.
3. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Replacement arthroplasty versus internal fixation for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD000086.
4. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip–apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(7):1058–1064.
5. Haidukewych GJ. Intertrochanteric fractures: ten tips to improve results. Instr Course Lect. 2009;58:503–509.
6. Kaufer H. Mechanics of the treatment of hip injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;(146):53–61.
7. Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer RF. Analysis of six hundred and twenty-two intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(2):216–221.
8. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(12):1726–1733.
9. Parker MJ. Cutting-out of the dynamic hip screw related to its position. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74(4):625.
10. Bhandari M, Swiontkowski MF. Management of acute hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(21):2053–2062.
11. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(4):700–707.
12. Zuckerman JD. Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(23):1519–1525.
13. Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS. Factors affecting the outcome of internal fixation of extracapsular hip fractures. Injury. 2006;37(8):707–712.
14. Shoda E, Kitada M, Nakagawa M, et al. Risk factors affecting mechanical failure of internal fixation in intertrochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138(3):335–342.
15. Baumgaertner MR, Solberg BD. Awareness of tip–apex distance reduces failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(6):969–971.