Cargando…
Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study
BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are one of the problems in clinical treatment. The prognosis is uncertain. Currently, No internal fixation method is superior to other internal fixation methods in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Therefore, the internal fixation system needs to be further...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7155247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32284062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03259-5 |
_version_ | 1783521992803090432 |
---|---|
author | Shu, Dong-Ping Xiao, Ya-Ping Bei, Ming-Jian Ji, Tao Peng, Yong-Jun Ma, Bing Li, Shao-Gang |
author_facet | Shu, Dong-Ping Xiao, Ya-Ping Bei, Ming-Jian Ji, Tao Peng, Yong-Jun Ma, Bing Li, Shao-Gang |
author_sort | Shu, Dong-Ping |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are one of the problems in clinical treatment. The prognosis is uncertain. Currently, No internal fixation method is superior to other internal fixation methods in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Therefore, the internal fixation system needs to be further explored. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of femoral neck dynamic compression locking system (DCLS) and multiple cannulated compression screws(MCCS) in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHODS: A prospective analysis of 54 cases of femoral neck fractures treated with either a DCLS (n = 28) or MCCS (n = 26) was conducted between December 2015 and November 2017 in authors’ hospitals. The perioperative and postoperative parameters of the two groups were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were followed up for 24–47 months. The etiology was caused by a fall. There was no significant difference in follow-up time, operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the two groups (all P > 0.05). The Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, partial weight-bearing time and complete weight-bearing time were significantly better in the DCLS group than in the MCCS group (all P < 0.05). The fracture healing rate in the DCLS group was higher than that in the MCCS group. CONCLUSIONS: The DCLS and MCCS might be equally effective in terms of operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. However, the DCLS is superior to the MCCS in Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, weight-bearing time and fracture healing rate. So, DCLS deserves further study. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7155247 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71552472020-04-20 Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study Shu, Dong-Ping Xiao, Ya-Ping Bei, Ming-Jian Ji, Tao Peng, Yong-Jun Ma, Bing Li, Shao-Gang BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are one of the problems in clinical treatment. The prognosis is uncertain. Currently, No internal fixation method is superior to other internal fixation methods in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Therefore, the internal fixation system needs to be further explored. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of femoral neck dynamic compression locking system (DCLS) and multiple cannulated compression screws(MCCS) in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHODS: A prospective analysis of 54 cases of femoral neck fractures treated with either a DCLS (n = 28) or MCCS (n = 26) was conducted between December 2015 and November 2017 in authors’ hospitals. The perioperative and postoperative parameters of the two groups were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were followed up for 24–47 months. The etiology was caused by a fall. There was no significant difference in follow-up time, operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the two groups (all P > 0.05). The Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, partial weight-bearing time and complete weight-bearing time were significantly better in the DCLS group than in the MCCS group (all P < 0.05). The fracture healing rate in the DCLS group was higher than that in the MCCS group. CONCLUSIONS: The DCLS and MCCS might be equally effective in terms of operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. However, the DCLS is superior to the MCCS in Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, weight-bearing time and fracture healing rate. So, DCLS deserves further study. BioMed Central 2020-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7155247/ /pubmed/32284062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03259-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Shu, Dong-Ping Xiao, Ya-Ping Bei, Ming-Jian Ji, Tao Peng, Yong-Jun Ma, Bing Li, Shao-Gang Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study |
title | Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study |
title_full | Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study |
title_fullStr | Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study |
title_full_unstemmed | Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study |
title_short | Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study |
title_sort | dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7155247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32284062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03259-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shudongping dynamiccompressionlockingsystemversusmultiplecannulatedcompressionscrewforthetreatmentoffemoralneckfracturesacomparativestudy AT xiaoyaping dynamiccompressionlockingsystemversusmultiplecannulatedcompressionscrewforthetreatmentoffemoralneckfracturesacomparativestudy AT beimingjian dynamiccompressionlockingsystemversusmultiplecannulatedcompressionscrewforthetreatmentoffemoralneckfracturesacomparativestudy AT jitao dynamiccompressionlockingsystemversusmultiplecannulatedcompressionscrewforthetreatmentoffemoralneckfracturesacomparativestudy AT pengyongjun dynamiccompressionlockingsystemversusmultiplecannulatedcompressionscrewforthetreatmentoffemoralneckfracturesacomparativestudy AT mabing dynamiccompressionlockingsystemversusmultiplecannulatedcompressionscrewforthetreatmentoffemoralneckfracturesacomparativestudy AT lishaogang dynamiccompressionlockingsystemversusmultiplecannulatedcompressionscrewforthetreatmentoffemoralneckfracturesacomparativestudy |