Nonanatomical reduction of femoral neck fractures in young patients with different Pauwels classifications: a retrospective study and finite element analysis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported that positive buttress is as effective as anatomical reduction in treating young femoral neck fractures, but whether this effect is related to the Pauwels classification remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze the clinical prognosis of positive buttress in young femoral neck fractures with different Pauwels classifications, as well as to assess its biomechanical properties. METHODS: A total of 170 young patients with femoral neck fractures who were treated with three cannulated screws were included in this study. Patients were divided into three groups based on their preoperative Pauwels classification. Each group was divided into three subgroups based on the reduction quality positive buttress, negative buttress and anatomical reduction. The femoral neck shortening, the incidence of necrosis of the femoral head (AVN) and the Harris hip scores at the last follow-up were compared across the three reduction quality within each Pauwels classification. Subsequently, a volunteer was recruited, CT data of the hip was obtained, and finite element models representing different reduction quality under varying Pauwels classifications were established. The biomechanical properties of each model were then evaluated following the application of strains. RESULTS: In Pauwels type I, there were no significant differences in postoperative femoral neck shortening, incidence of AVN, or Harris score among the three types of reduction quality (P > 0.05). However, positive buttress provided superior biomechanical stability compared to negative buttress and anatomical reduction. In Pauwels type II, the incidence of AVN was similar between the positive buttress and the anatomical reduction groups, and both were significantly lower than that in the negative buttress (P < 0.05). The Harris score of the positive buttress was higher than that of the negative buttress, and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of femoral neck shortening between the three groups (P > 0.05). Finite element analysis showed that the biomechanical stability of positive buttress was equivalent to anatomical reduction, and both were better than negative buttress. In Pauwels type III, the incidence of AVN in the anatomical reduction group was lower than that in both the positive buttress and negative buttress (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of AVN or femoral neck shortening between positive buttress and negative buttress (P > 0.05). There was also no difference in postoperative Harris scores between the three reduction qualities (P > 0.05). Both positive buttress and negative buttress exhibited identical biomechanical qualities and were inferior to anatomical reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The biomechanical and clinical dominance of positive buttress correlates with Pauwels type. Specifically, Positive buttress is biomechanically stable in Pauwels types I and II. In Pauwels type III, positive buttress is not advantageous. As the Pauwels angle increases, the biomechanical benefit of the positive buttress is lost. Therefore, regardless of the Pauwels classification, negative buttress should be avoided after reduction of femoral neck fractures in young patients.