1. Bedi A, Toan Le T. Subtrochanteric femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004; 35:473–483.
Article
2. Celebi L, Can M, Muratli HH, Yagmurlu MF, Yuksel HY, Bicimoğlu A. Indirect reduction and biological internal fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Injury. 2006; 37:740–750.
Article
3. Garnavos C, Peterman A, Howard PW. The treatment of difficult proximal femoral fractures with the Russell-Taylor reconstruction nail. Injury. 1999; 30:407–415.
Article
4. Haidukewych GJ, Berry DJ. Nonunion of fractures of the subtrochanteric region of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 419:185–188.
Article
5. Higgins TF, Pittman G, Hines J, Bachus KN. Biomechanical analysis of distal femur fracture fixation: fixed-angle screw-plate construct versus condylar blade plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21:43–46.
Article
6. Kang S, McAndrew MP, Johnson KD. The reconstruction locked nail for complex fractures of the proximal femur. J Orthop Trauma. 1995; 9:453–463.
Article
7. Krettek C, Miclau T, Grün O, Schandelmaier O, Tscherne H. Intraoperative control of axes, rotation and length in femoral and tibial fractures-technical note. Injury. 1998; 29:Suppl 3. C29–C39.
8. Krettek C, Schandelmaier P, Miclau T, Tscherne H. Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) using the DCS in proximal and distal femoral fractures. Injury. 1997; 28:Suppl 1. A20–A30.
Article
9. Kulkarni SS, Moran CG. Results of dynamic condylar screw for subtrochanteric fractures. Injury. 2003; 34:117–122.
Article
10. Nungu KS, Olerud C, Rehnberg L. Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures with the AO dynamic condylar screw. Injury. 1993; 24:90–92.
Article
11. Oh CW, Oh JK, Kim SJ, et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for comminuted subtrochanteric fracture of the femur. J Korean Fract Soc. 2006; 19:407–411.
Article
12. Oh CW, Song HR, Jeon IH, Min WK, Park BC. Nail-assisted percutaneous plating of pediatric femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 456:176–181.
Article
13. Pai CH. Dynamic condylar screw for subtrochanteric fractures with greater trochanteric extension. J Orthop Trauma. 1996; 10:317–322.
Article
14. Pakuts AJ. Unstable subtrochanteric fractures-gamma nail versus dynamic condylar screw. Int Orthop. 2004; 28:21–24.
Article
15. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84:1093–1110.
16. Pryce Lewis JR, Ashcroft GP. Reverse LISS plating for proximal segmental femoral fractures in the polytrauma patient: a case report. Injury. 2007; 38:235–239.
Article
17. Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Jalovaara P. Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. A comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw: short-term outcome in 58 patients. Int Orthop. 2007; 31:65–70.
Article
18. Siebenrock KA, Muller U, Ganz R. Indirect reduction with a condylar blade plate for osteosynthesis of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Injury. 1998; 29:Suppl 3. C7–C15.
Article
19. Sims SH. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002; 33:113–126.
Article
20. Sohn OJ, Kim SD, Kim IW, Byun SJ. A comparative study of trochanteric fractures treated with the intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric fixation or the proximal femoral nail. J Korean Fract Soc. 2006; 19:303–308.
Article
21. Vaidya SV, Dholakia DB, Chatterjee A. The use of a dynamic condylar screw and biological reduction techniques for subtrochanteric femur fracture. Injury. 2003; 34:123–128.
Article
22. Valverde JA, Alonso MG, Porro JG, Rueda D, Larrauri PM, Soler JJ. Use of the gamma nail in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 350:56–61.
Article
23. Warwick DJ, Crichlow TP, Langkamer VG, Jackson M. The dynamic condylar screw in the management of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Injury. 1995; 26:241–244.
Article
24. Yoshino N, Watanabe Y, Takenaka N, et al. Implant failure of long Gamma nail in a patient with intertrochanteric-subtrochanteric fracture. J Orthop Sci. 2006; 11:638–643.
Article