Revision rate of displaced femoral neck fractures in non-elderly adults: a retrospective comparative study of the femoral neck system and cannulated screws

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Displaced femoral neck fractures are associated with a high revision rate. The new femoral neck system(FNS) offers advantages in fixation stability, potentially reducing the need for revision. The purpose of this study was to compare the revision rate of patients with different reduction quality treated with the FNS and cannulated screws (CS). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with Garden III or IV femoral neck fractures who underwent osteosynthesis in a level 1 trauma center between July 2019 and June 2023. A total of 141 cases met the inclusion criteria and received treatment with either the FNS (N = 65) or CS (N = 76). The quality of fracture reduction, surgical complications (such as femoral neck shortening, avascular necrosis of femoral head, nonunion of fracture, implant failure and withdrawal), revision surgery and the reasons for revision were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the 141 cases was 52.0 years (range 18-65); with sixty-five cases being male (46.1%). Eighty-four fractures (59.6%) were classified as Garden type III. Reduction quality was good in 71 cases (50.4%) and fair in 70 cases. The mean follow-up period was 25.9 months (range 12-46). A total of 26 cases(18.4%) underwent revision surgery. The revision rate in cases with good reduction was 11.3% (8/71 cases), with seven cases (four hardware removal and three arthroplasty) in the CS group and one case (arthroplasty for fracture nonunion and implant failure) in the FNS group, a significant difference was found between the two groups(P = 0.041). Among the 18 cases (25.7%, 18/70) with fair reduction who underwent revision surgery, nine cases (six hardware removal and three arthroplasty) in the CS group, and nine cases (arthroplasty for implant failure and cut-out) in the FNS group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.672). The total revision rate between the FNS group (15.4%, 10/65) and the CS group (21.1%, 16/76) was not significantly different (P = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS: The total revision rate between the FNS and CS group showed no difference. However, in cases with good reduction, the revision rate was lower in the FNS group compared to the CS group.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.