Aim The two most commonly used implants for treatment of trochanteric fractures are the dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). The aim of this study was to evaluate blood loss in patients with trochanteric fracture treated with DHS or PFNA. Methods This retrospective comparative study included 61 patients with trochanteric fracture, who were divided according to a surgical method into DHS and PFNA groups. In the PFNA group, a short third generation gamma-nail was used for osteosynthesis (Supernail GT, Lima Corporate, Italy), and in the DHS group a dynamic hip screw was used (Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland). Complete blood count with haemoglobin and haematocrit values was taken preoperatively and on the first day postoperatively and a number of red blood cell transfusions (RBC) were evaluated. Electronic medical records from 2022 were used to collect patient data. Results There were no significant differences in terms of gender and age between the groups (p=0.510 and p=0.087, respectively), as well as in the fracture type distribution (p=0.886). The duration of postoperative hospitalisation was similar between the groups (p=0.643). There was no statistically significant association between the number of RBC transfusions and fixation method (p=0.091), as well as in postoperative haemoglobin and haematocrit levels between the groups (p=0.180 and p=0.225, respectively). Conclusion Both DHS and PFNA implants are safe surgical techniques for the treatment of trochanteric fractures, with similar blood loss, number of blood transfusions and hospital stay.

Aim To determine differences between reviparin and dalteparin treatment in patients with extracapsular hip fractures treated with intramedullary nailing and their effects on perioperative blood loss and early postoperative recovery. Methods Retrospective comparative study included 68 patients with extracapsular hip fracture who were divided into dalteparin and reviparin group. Medical records were used to obtain demographic data, laboratory parameters, haemoglobin and haematocrit levels, platelet count, mortality rate and medical complications. Results Out of total 68 patients, 31 were in reviparin and 37 in dalteparin group. Mean age of patients was 70.5 (±14.4) and 76.8 (±8.4) years in reviparin and dalteparin group, respectively (p=0.071). Median values of haemoglobin levels on the first postoperative day were lower in dalteparin group compared to reviparin group (p=0.012). On the first postoperative day haematocrit values were also lower in dalteparin than in reviparin group (p=0.015). Both groups showed an increase in platelet count on the first postoperative day, but without significant difference (p=0.084). There was no statistically significant difference in intrahospital mortality between the groups (6.4% vs. 2.7%; p=0.588). One case of pulmonary embolism was detected in the dalteparin group. Conclusion Low-molecular-weight heparin is the drug of choice in patients with hip fractures for thromboprophylaxis. Due to non-antithrombin-mediated actions, reviparin and dalteparin could have different effects on perioperative blood loss. Both dalteparin and reviparin are safe and effective agents for thromboprophylaxis in patients with proximal femur fractures.