Comparison of femoral neck shortening after femoral neck system and cannulated cancellous screw fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults.

Cancellous Screws Femoral neck fractures Femoral neck system Fracture fixation, internal Osteosynthesis, fracture

Journal

Injury
ISSN: 1879-0267
Titre abrégé: Injury
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0226040

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 20 09 2023
revised: 04 03 2024
accepted: 10 04 2024
medline: 20 4 2024
pubmed: 20 4 2024
entrez: 19 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of femoral neck shortening between the femoral neck system (FNS) and the cannulated cancellous screws (CCS) for displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 225 patients aged 18-65 years with displaced femoral neck fracture were divided into two groups according to internal fixation: 135 patients in the FNS group and 90 patients in the CCS group. The length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, quality of reduction, extent of femoral neck shortening, incidence of femoral neck shortening, femoral neck shortening at each follow-up visit, Harris hip score (HHS), reoperation, and complications were compared between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 28.2 (26.0, 31.2) months in the FNS group and 30.2 (26.3, 34.7) months in the CCS group. The follow-up time, age, sex distribution, body mass index (BMI), mechanism of injury, injured side, length of hospital stay, time from injury to surgery, and fracture classification were similar between the groups. Duration of surgery was longer in the FNS group (65.0 (55.0, 87.0) min versus 55.0 (50.0, 65.0) min, P<0.001); intraoperative blood loss was greater in the FNS group (50.0 (20.0, 60.0) ml versus 20.0 (10.0, 35.0) ml, P<0.001). Femoral neck shortening was 2.4 (1.0, 4.5) mm in the FNS group versus 0.6 (0.0, 2.6) mm in the CCS group at 1 month postoperatively (P<0.001); 3.7 (1.8, 6.4) mm in the FNS group versus 1.2 (0.6, 3.8) mm in the CCS group at 3 months (P<0.001); 4.1(2.4, 7.7) mm in the FNS group versus 2.3 (1.1, 4.4) mm in the CCS group at 6 months (P<0.001); 4.2 (2.6, 7.7) mm in the FNS group versus 2.6 (1.3, 4.6) mm in the CCS group at 12 months (P<0.001); and 4.5 (2.8, 8.0) mm in the FNS group versus 2.8 (1.5, 4.8) mm in the CCS group at 18 months (P<0.001). The two groups showed no significant differences in HHS, reoperation, and reduction quality. Compared to CCS, FNS is deficient in preventing femoral neck shortening. Future research should focus on improving FNS in terms of preventing femoral neck shortening.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of femoral neck shortening between the femoral neck system (FNS) and the cannulated cancellous screws (CCS) for displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 225 patients aged 18-65 years with displaced femoral neck fracture were divided into two groups according to internal fixation: 135 patients in the FNS group and 90 patients in the CCS group. The length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, quality of reduction, extent of femoral neck shortening, incidence of femoral neck shortening, femoral neck shortening at each follow-up visit, Harris hip score (HHS), reoperation, and complications were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS RESULTS
The median follow-up time was 28.2 (26.0, 31.2) months in the FNS group and 30.2 (26.3, 34.7) months in the CCS group. The follow-up time, age, sex distribution, body mass index (BMI), mechanism of injury, injured side, length of hospital stay, time from injury to surgery, and fracture classification were similar between the groups. Duration of surgery was longer in the FNS group (65.0 (55.0, 87.0) min versus 55.0 (50.0, 65.0) min, P<0.001); intraoperative blood loss was greater in the FNS group (50.0 (20.0, 60.0) ml versus 20.0 (10.0, 35.0) ml, P<0.001). Femoral neck shortening was 2.4 (1.0, 4.5) mm in the FNS group versus 0.6 (0.0, 2.6) mm in the CCS group at 1 month postoperatively (P<0.001); 3.7 (1.8, 6.4) mm in the FNS group versus 1.2 (0.6, 3.8) mm in the CCS group at 3 months (P<0.001); 4.1(2.4, 7.7) mm in the FNS group versus 2.3 (1.1, 4.4) mm in the CCS group at 6 months (P<0.001); 4.2 (2.6, 7.7) mm in the FNS group versus 2.6 (1.3, 4.6) mm in the CCS group at 12 months (P<0.001); and 4.5 (2.8, 8.0) mm in the FNS group versus 2.8 (1.5, 4.8) mm in the CCS group at 18 months (P<0.001). The two groups showed no significant differences in HHS, reoperation, and reduction quality.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Compared to CCS, FNS is deficient in preventing femoral neck shortening. Future research should focus on improving FNS in terms of preventing femoral neck shortening.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38640596
pii: S0020-1383(24)00270-5
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111564
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

111564

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Shunze Zheng (S)

Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350007, China.

Dongze Lin (D)

Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350007, China; Fujian Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for First Aid and Rehabilitation in Orthopaedic Trauma, Fuzhou Trauma Medical Center, Fuzhou 350007, China.

Peisheng Chen (P)

Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350007, China; Fujian Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for First Aid and Rehabilitation in Orthopaedic Trauma, Fuzhou Trauma Medical Center, Fuzhou 350007, China.

Chaohui Lin (C)

Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350007, China; Fujian Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for First Aid and Rehabilitation in Orthopaedic Trauma, Fuzhou Trauma Medical Center, Fuzhou 350007, China.

Bin Chen (B)

Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350007, China; Fujian Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for First Aid and Rehabilitation in Orthopaedic Trauma, Fuzhou Trauma Medical Center, Fuzhou 350007, China.

Ke Zheng (K)

Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350007, China; Fujian Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for First Aid and Rehabilitation in Orthopaedic Trauma, Fuzhou Trauma Medical Center, Fuzhou 350007, China.

Fengfei Lin (F)

Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350007, China; Fujian Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for First Aid and Rehabilitation in Orthopaedic Trauma, Fuzhou Trauma Medical Center, Fuzhou 350007, China. Electronic address: 5596558644@qq.com.

Classifications MeSH