Cargando…

Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)

Background: The femoral neck system (FNS) was introduced as a minimally invasive fixation device for managing femoral neck fractures. Objective: To compare radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of femoral neck fracture patients following FNS compared to dynamic hip sc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niemann, Marcel, Maleitzke, Tazio, Jahn, Markus, Salmoukas, Katharina, Braun, Karl F., Graef, Frank, Stöckle, Ulrich, Meller, Sebastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10608621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37895454
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life13102073
_version_ 1785127823563816960
author Niemann, Marcel
Maleitzke, Tazio
Jahn, Markus
Salmoukas, Katharina
Braun, Karl F.
Graef, Frank
Stöckle, Ulrich
Meller, Sebastian
author_facet Niemann, Marcel
Maleitzke, Tazio
Jahn, Markus
Salmoukas, Katharina
Braun, Karl F.
Graef, Frank
Stöckle, Ulrich
Meller, Sebastian
author_sort Niemann, Marcel
collection PubMed
description Background: The femoral neck system (FNS) was introduced as a minimally invasive fixation device for managing femoral neck fractures. Objective: To compare radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of femoral neck fracture patients following FNS compared to dynamic hip screw (DHS) implantation combined with an anti-rotational screw. Methods: Patients who underwent closed reduction and internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture between 2020 and 2022 were retrospectively included. We measured leg length, femoral offset, and centrum–collum–diaphyseal (CCD) angle in plain radiographs. Scar length, Harris Hip Score, short-form health survey 36-item score (SF-36), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) were assessed during follow-up visits. Results: We included 43 patients (22 females) with a median age of 66 (IQR 57, 75). In both groups, leg length differences between the injured and the contralateral side increased, and femoral offset and CCD angle differences were maintained over time. FNS patients had shorter scars and reported fewer emotional problems and more energy. There were no differences between groups regarding the remaining SF-36 sub-scores, Harris Hip Score, and NRS. Conclusions: The FNS allows for a comparable leg length, femoral offset, and CCD angle reconstruction while achieving similarly high functional and global health scores to the DHS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10608621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106086212023-10-28 Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) Niemann, Marcel Maleitzke, Tazio Jahn, Markus Salmoukas, Katharina Braun, Karl F. Graef, Frank Stöckle, Ulrich Meller, Sebastian Life (Basel) Article Background: The femoral neck system (FNS) was introduced as a minimally invasive fixation device for managing femoral neck fractures. Objective: To compare radiographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of femoral neck fracture patients following FNS compared to dynamic hip screw (DHS) implantation combined with an anti-rotational screw. Methods: Patients who underwent closed reduction and internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture between 2020 and 2022 were retrospectively included. We measured leg length, femoral offset, and centrum–collum–diaphyseal (CCD) angle in plain radiographs. Scar length, Harris Hip Score, short-form health survey 36-item score (SF-36), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) were assessed during follow-up visits. Results: We included 43 patients (22 females) with a median age of 66 (IQR 57, 75). In both groups, leg length differences between the injured and the contralateral side increased, and femoral offset and CCD angle differences were maintained over time. FNS patients had shorter scars and reported fewer emotional problems and more energy. There were no differences between groups regarding the remaining SF-36 sub-scores, Harris Hip Score, and NRS. Conclusions: The FNS allows for a comparable leg length, femoral offset, and CCD angle reconstruction while achieving similarly high functional and global health scores to the DHS. MDPI 2023-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10608621/ /pubmed/37895454 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life13102073 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Niemann, Marcel
Maleitzke, Tazio
Jahn, Markus
Salmoukas, Katharina
Braun, Karl F.
Graef, Frank
Stöckle, Ulrich
Meller, Sebastian
Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)
title Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)
title_full Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)
title_fullStr Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)
title_full_unstemmed Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)
title_short Restoration of Hip Geometry after Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparison of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) and the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)
title_sort restoration of hip geometry after femoral neck fracture: a comparison of the femoral neck system (fns) and the dynamic hip screw (dhs)
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10608621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37895454
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life13102073
work_keys_str_mv AT niemannmarcel restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs
AT maleitzketazio restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs
AT jahnmarkus restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs
AT salmoukaskatharina restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs
AT braunkarlf restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs
AT graeffrank restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs
AT stockleulrich restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs
AT mellersebastian restorationofhipgeometryafterfemoralneckfractureacomparisonofthefemoralnecksystemfnsandthedynamichipscrewdhs