Cargando…

Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes between use of sliding fixation (three cannulated screws, TCS) and non-sliding fixation (four cannulated screws, FCS) in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients with fresh femoral neck fractures treated wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Xiangyu, Lv, Yang, Cui, Zengzhen, Fan, Jixing, Zhou, Fang, Tian, Yun, Ji, Hongquan, Zhang, Zhishan, Guo, Yan, Yang, Zhongwei, Hou, Guojin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8987303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35402501
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.826159
_version_ 1784682711552622592
author Xu, Xiangyu
Lv, Yang
Cui, Zengzhen
Fan, Jixing
Zhou, Fang
Tian, Yun
Ji, Hongquan
Zhang, Zhishan
Guo, Yan
Yang, Zhongwei
Hou, Guojin
author_facet Xu, Xiangyu
Lv, Yang
Cui, Zengzhen
Fan, Jixing
Zhou, Fang
Tian, Yun
Ji, Hongquan
Zhang, Zhishan
Guo, Yan
Yang, Zhongwei
Hou, Guojin
author_sort Xu, Xiangyu
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes between use of sliding fixation (three cannulated screws, TCS) and non-sliding fixation (four cannulated screws, FCS) in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients with fresh femoral neck fractures treated with TCS (60 cases) and FCS (42 cases) between January, 2018 and December, 2019. The demographic data, follow-up time, hospitalization time, operation time, blood loss, length of femoral neck shortening (LFNS), soft tissue irritation of the thigh (STIT), Harris hip score, and complications (such as internal fixation failure, non-union, and avascular necrosis of the femoral head) were also collected, recorded, and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients with an average age of 60.9 (range, 18–86) years were analyzed. The median follow-up time was 25 (22 to 32) months. The LFNS in the FCS group (median 1.2 mm) was significantly lower than that in the TCS group (median 2.8 mm) (P < 0.05). In the Garden classification, the number of displaced fractures in the TCS group was significantly lower than that in the FCS group (P < 0.05). The median hospitalization time, operation time, blood loss, reduction quality, internal fixation failure rate (IFFR), STIT, and Harris hip score were not statistically different between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, in the subgroup analysis of displaced fractures, the LFNS (median 1.2 mm), STIT (2/22, 13.6%), and Harris hip score (median 91.5) of the FCS group at the last follow-up were significantly better than the LFNS (median 5.7 mm), STIT (7/16, 43.8%), and Harris hip score (median 89) of the TCS group (P < 0.05). No complications such as incision infection, deep infection, pulmonary embolism, or femoral head necrosis were found in either group. CONCLUSION: TCS and FCS are effective for treating femoral neck fractures. For non-displaced fractures, there was no significant difference in the clinical outcomes between the two groups. However, for displaced fractures, the LFNS of the FCS is significantly lower than that of the TCS, which may reduce the occurrence of STIT and improve the Harris hip score.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8987303
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89873032022-04-08 Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation Xu, Xiangyu Lv, Yang Cui, Zengzhen Fan, Jixing Zhou, Fang Tian, Yun Ji, Hongquan Zhang, Zhishan Guo, Yan Yang, Zhongwei Hou, Guojin Front Surg Surgery OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes between use of sliding fixation (three cannulated screws, TCS) and non-sliding fixation (four cannulated screws, FCS) in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients with fresh femoral neck fractures treated with TCS (60 cases) and FCS (42 cases) between January, 2018 and December, 2019. The demographic data, follow-up time, hospitalization time, operation time, blood loss, length of femoral neck shortening (LFNS), soft tissue irritation of the thigh (STIT), Harris hip score, and complications (such as internal fixation failure, non-union, and avascular necrosis of the femoral head) were also collected, recorded, and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients with an average age of 60.9 (range, 18–86) years were analyzed. The median follow-up time was 25 (22 to 32) months. The LFNS in the FCS group (median 1.2 mm) was significantly lower than that in the TCS group (median 2.8 mm) (P < 0.05). In the Garden classification, the number of displaced fractures in the TCS group was significantly lower than that in the FCS group (P < 0.05). The median hospitalization time, operation time, blood loss, reduction quality, internal fixation failure rate (IFFR), STIT, and Harris hip score were not statistically different between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, in the subgroup analysis of displaced fractures, the LFNS (median 1.2 mm), STIT (2/22, 13.6%), and Harris hip score (median 91.5) of the FCS group at the last follow-up were significantly better than the LFNS (median 5.7 mm), STIT (7/16, 43.8%), and Harris hip score (median 89) of the TCS group (P < 0.05). No complications such as incision infection, deep infection, pulmonary embolism, or femoral head necrosis were found in either group. CONCLUSION: TCS and FCS are effective for treating femoral neck fractures. For non-displaced fractures, there was no significant difference in the clinical outcomes between the two groups. However, for displaced fractures, the LFNS of the FCS is significantly lower than that of the TCS, which may reduce the occurrence of STIT and improve the Harris hip score. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8987303/ /pubmed/35402501 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.826159 Text en Copyright © 2022 Xu, Lv, Cui, Fan, Zhou, Tian, Ji, Zhang, Guo, Yang and Hou. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Xu, Xiangyu
Lv, Yang
Cui, Zengzhen
Fan, Jixing
Zhou, Fang
Tian, Yun
Ji, Hongquan
Zhang, Zhishan
Guo, Yan
Yang, Zhongwei
Hou, Guojin
Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation
title Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation
title_full Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation
title_fullStr Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation
title_full_unstemmed Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation
title_short Non-sliding Fixation Shows Improved Clinical Outcomes for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures as Compared to Sliding Fixation
title_sort non-sliding fixation shows improved clinical outcomes for displaced femoral neck fractures as compared to sliding fixation
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8987303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35402501
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.826159
work_keys_str_mv AT xuxiangyu nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT lvyang nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT cuizengzhen nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT fanjixing nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT zhoufang nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT tianyun nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT jihongquan nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT zhangzhishan nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT guoyan nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT yangzhongwei nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation
AT houguojin nonslidingfixationshowsimprovedclinicaloutcomesfordisplacedfemoralneckfracturesascomparedtoslidingfixation