There are many different types of internal fixation materials for proximal femur fractures, but they can be basically divided into two forms: intramedullary fixation and extramedullary fixation. At present, the intramedullary nailing system represented by PFNA is the mainstream choice of internal fixation for proximal femur fracture treatment, which has the advantages of minimally invasive and strong and effective fixation, while locking plates have been gradually applied to proximal femur fractures only in the past five years. From a biomechanical point of view, the integrity of the lateral wall of the proximal femur, a section of cortex about 3 cm below the most elevated area of the greater trochanter, is an important factor in determining the failure of internal fixation of the femur, and if the integrity of the lateral wall is disrupted, especially in complex fractures of type A2.2 and A2.3 of the AO fracture, then the probability of internal fixation failure will be significantly increased. The intramedullary fixation system itself cannot restore the posterolateral wall structure, and nailing from the posterolateral wall may affect or even destroy the posterolateral wall. The LISS system has been tried for proximal femur fractures in view of its advantages such as multiple screws to hold the bone block, the ability to gather comminuted fractures, its suitability for elderly patients with osteoporotic fractures, and especially its ability to strengthen the lateral wall structure. After the locking plate system was used for proximal femur fractures, there were significant improvements in the product structure, degree of fit, and ease of operation, but the majority of clinicians were still concerned about whether it was strong enough and prone to broken plates and nails compared to existing intramedullary internal fixation. Laboratory data show that locking plate fixation is stronger than DHS/DCS or angle plate, but weaker than intramedullary system. However, clinical studies done by domestic colleagues show that there is no significant difference between locking plate system and intramedullary fixation system in terms of operation time, bleeding volume, complications, fracture healing rate, and postoperative efficacy, and even some reports report superiority over PFNA in terms of operation time and bleeding volume. From our clinical experience, compared to intramedullary fixation system, locking plate avoids invisible bleeding caused by sphincter can reduce intraoperative The locking plate can be used in patients with high risk of pulmonary embolism, patients with thin or even deformed medullary cavity, patients with heavy systemic conditions, and patients with complex lateral wall fractures. . In addition, in the domestic medical environment, most patients do not require immediate postoperative ambulation, but rather emphasize the “good looks” of the imaging data, so if the case is selected appropriately, the slightly inferior fixation strength of the locking plate system is no longer an obvious disadvantage.