Comparison of the Surgical Outcome between the Multiple Screw Fixation and Fixed Angle Devices for the Basicervical Femoral Neck Fractures.

Introduction: Basicervical femoral neck fracture (FNF) is an uncommon type of femoral neck fracture and is associated with an increased risk of fixation failure due to its inherent instability. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical parameters and reoperation rate between the use of a multiple cannulated screw (MCS) and fixed angle device (FAD) in treating basicervical FNFs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 885 patients who underwent internal fixation between May 2004 and August 2019 to determine basicervical FNF with at least 12 months of follow-up. Among the identified 77 patients with basicervical FNF, 17 patients who underwent multiple cannulated screw (MCS) fixation and 36 patients who underwent fixed angle device (FAD) fixation were included. We compared the rates of fracture-site collapse and reoperations according to the fixation device. Results: Among the 53 patients with basicervical FNF, 13 patients (24.5%) sustained surgical complications (8 collapses of fracture site and 5 reoperations). The reoperation rate in the MCS group was significantly higher than that in the FAD group (23.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.016), without any significant difference in the collapse of the fracture site (11.8% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.642). Conclusions: Although basicervical FNF was rare among hip fractures, fracture site collapse was prevalent and prone to fixation failure. Surgeons should keep this in mind, and consider FAD for basicervical FNF.

Fixed angle device comparison in young femoral neck fractures: Dynamic hip screw vs dynamic helical hip system.

INTRODUCTION: Femoral neck fractures in the young patient present a unique challenge. Most surgeons managing these injuries prefer a fixed angle implant, however these devices are fraught with problems. A dynamic hip screw (DHS) is one such fixed angle device that risks malreduction through rotational torque during screw insertion. To avoid this risk some surgeons utilize a dynamic helical hip system (DHHS), however little is known about the complication profile of this device. We hypothesized that the complication rate between these two devices would be similar. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients presenting to a single tertiary referral center with a femoral neck fracture were identified from a prospectively collected trauma database over an 11-year period. Patients were included if they were less than 60 years of age, treated with a DHS or DHHS, and had at least 6 months of follow-up. Demographic data, injury characteristics, and post-operative complications were obtained through chart review. Standard statistical comparisons were made between groups. A total of 77 patients met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Average age of patients was 38 years (range: 18-59) and 56 (73%) were male. The DHS was used in 37 (48%) patients and the DHHS was used in 40 (52%) patients. Demographic data including average age, gender, body mass index, and smoking status did not differ between the groups. There were 29 (39%) total complications of interest (femoral neck shortening >5 mm, non-union requiring osteotomy, conversion to THA, and osteonecrosis. There were 19 (51%) complications in the DHS group and 10 (25%) in the DHHS group (p = 0.01, risk difference 25%, 95% CI 7-43). Comparisons of the individual complications about the DHS and DHHS cohort did not reach statistical significance for non-union (8% vs 3%) or THA (16% vs 13%) (p = 0.33, p = 0.64, respectively) but a difference was detected in the rate of shortening (27% vs 10%; p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a high risk of complication when managing young femoral neck fractures in line with prior literature. The major complication rate of non-union requiring osteotomy or fixation failure resulting in THA was no different between the two groups, but the rate of shortening was greater the DHS group. This data suggests the DHHS may be a suitable device to manage the young femoral neck fracture and without increased risk of complication.

Fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults: Fixed-angle devices or Pauwel screws?

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the incidence of complications after fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults treated with fixed-angle devices versus multiple cancellous screws and a trochanteric lag screw (Pauwel screw). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a level I trauma centre. Sixty-two skeletally mature patients (age range, 16-60 years) with displaced femoral neck fractures were included in the study. Forty-seven were treated with a fixed-angle device (sliding hip plate with screw or helical blade) and 15 with multiple cancellous screws placed in a Pauwel configuration. The main outcome measure was postoperative complication of osteonecrosis or nonunion treated with a surgical procedure. RESULTS: Significantly fewer failures occurred in the fixed-angle group (21%) than in the screws group (60%) (p=0.008). Osteonecrosis was rare in the fixed-angle group, occurring in 2% of cases versus 33% of cases in the screws group (p=0.002). Consistent with previous studies, good to excellent reductions were associated with a failure rate of 25% and fair to poor reductions were associated with a failure rate of 55% (p=0.07). The best-case scenario of a good to excellent reduction stabilised with a fixed-angle device yielded a success rate of 85%. CONCLUSION: In young patients with displaced high-energy femoral neck fractures, fixed-angle devices resulted in fewer treatment failures than did Pauwel screws.

Fixed angle devices versus multiple cancellous screws: what does the evidence tell us?

Complications, including nonunion and avascular necrosis, are relatively common after internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture. Young patients are particularly impacted by these complications as salvage options often result in a suboptimal functional result. The quality of reduction appears to be of primary importance; however, it is unknown whether the choice of internal fixation affects the incidence of complications. In this article, we present the rationale and evidence for available internal fixation options. Current evidence is insufficient to recommend an optimal method of internal fixation, and this review demonstrates the need for high-quality randomised, controlled trials to study this problem.