Conservative vs Surgical Treatment of Impacted Femoral Neck Fracture in Patients 75 Years and Older

Management of Garden-I and II Femoral Neck Fractures: Perspectives on Primary Arthroplasty

This review compares internal fixation versus arthroplasty in the treatment of nondisplaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) calling attention to evolving areas of consensus that influence clinical decision-making. The Garden classification system, typically dichotomized into nondisplaced (types I and II) and displaced (types III and IV) fractures, has been used as a guide for surgical decision-making. Conventionally, treatment of nondisplaced FNF in the elderly has been with internal fixation, and treatment of a displaced FNF has been hemi-, or more recently total hip, arthroplasty. Studies over the last decade have raised concern over the appropriate treatment of nondisplaced FNFs due to high rates of reoperation of nondisplaced FNFs treated with internal fixation. Avascular necrosis (AVN), failure of internal fixation, secondary malunion, and pin/nail penetration through the femoral head have all been observed. Several studies have attributed fixation failure to a degree of femoral neck tilt ≥20°, either posteriorly or anteriorly as seen on the lateral X-ray. Because of these observations of fixation failures, the suggestion has been made that arthroplasty be used when the degree of posterior tilt exceeds a threshold of ≥20° tilt with the expectation of diminishing failure of fixation, decreasing the risk of reoperation and preserving function without increasing mortality rate. Frustrating additional analyses are uncertainties over the mechanisms of failure of internal fixation with ≥20° tilt and the persistently substantial 1-year mortality rate after FNF, which has not been influenced by fixation or replacement type. Due to the lack of consensus regarding the determination of the appropriate surgical intervention for nondisplaced FNFs, an improved algorithm for surgical decision-making for these fractures may prove useful.

Clinician perspectives on nonoperative management of hip fractures during COVID-19

Aims

To identify factors influencing clinicians' decisions to undertake a nonoperative hip fracture management approach among older people, and to determine whether there is global heterogeneity regarding these factors between clinicians from high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

Methods

A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was electronically distributed to clinicians around the world through the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN)'s Perioperative Special Interest Group and clinicians' personal networks between 24 May and 25 July 2021. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA v16.0. Between-group differences were determined using independent-samples t-tests and chi-squared tests.

Results

A total of 406 respondents from 51 countries answered the questionnaire, of whom 225 came from HIC and 180 from LMIC. Clinicians from HIC reported a greater median and mean estimated proportion of admitted patients with hip fracture undergoing surgery (median 96% (interquartile range (IQR) 95% to 99%); mean 94% (SD 8%)) than those from LMIC (median 85% (IQR 75% to 95%); mean 81% (SD 16%); p < 0.001). Global heterogeneity seems to exist regarding factors such as anticipated life expectancy, insufficient resources, ability to pay, treatment costs, and perception of risk in hip fracture management decision-making.

Conclusion

This study represents the first international sampling of clinician perspectives regarding nonoperative hip fracture management. Several factors seemed to influence the clinician decision-making process. Further research is needed to inform the development of best practice guidelines to improve decision-making and the quality of hip fracture care among older people.

Internal Fixation Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Nondisplaced Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare internal fixation (IF) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) for elderly individuals (ie, older than 65 years) with nondisplaced (ie, Garden type I or II) femoral neck fracture (FNF).

DATA SOURCE

We searched English literature of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase from inception to December 4, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared IF versus HA for elderly individuals with nondisplaced FNF. Primary outcomes were Harris hip score (HHS), quality of life per European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and mortality. Secondary outcomes were complications, reoperation, intraoperative bleeding, operation duration, and length of hospital stay.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors separately extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Three RCTs yielding 400 patients were enrolled, of which 203 (50.7%) underwent IF. Internal fixation was inferior to HA with respect to 6-month HHS [mean difference (MD) = -8.28 (-14.46, -2.10), P = 0.009] and 1-year EQ-5D [MD = -0.07 (-0.14, -0.00), P = 0.04]. The 2 techniques were comparable regarding length of hospital stay (day), HHS at 1 and 2 years, EQ-5D at 2 years, and mortality. IF was inferior to HA in implant-related complication [20.1% vs. 6.0%, relative risk (RR) = 3.18 (1.72, 5.88), P = 0.0002] and reoperation rate [20.1% vs. 6.0%, RR = 3.30 (1.79, 6.08), P = 0.0001]. Hemiarthroplasty had a greater blood loss (mL) [MD = -138.88 (-209.58, -68.18), P = 0.001] and operation duration (min) [MD = -23.27 (-44.95, -1.60), P = 0.04] compared with IF.

CONCLUSION

HA is the preferred technique for nondisplaced FNF if early recovery, higher mobility, and better quality of life are priorities. The choice of fixation should be weighed on an individual patient level.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Global Research Status and Trends of Femoral Neck Fracture Over the Past 27 Years: A Historical Review and Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Femoral neck fracture (FNF) is a commonly encountered injury in orthopedic practice, and many studies have been conducted in this field. However, no bibliometric studies regarding the global research trend concerning FNF have been performed. This study aims to analyze the knowledge framework, research hotspots, and theme trends in the field of FNF research.

Methods

The scientific outputs related to FNF from 1994 to 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Three bibliometric tools were used for this study. The main analyses include publication and citation counts, contributions of countries, institutions, authors, funding agencies and journals, and clustering of keywords.

Results

In total, 3,553 articles were identified. The annual publication counts of FNF showed an ascending tendency as a whole. The United States has the most prominent contributions, with the most number of publications and the highest H-index. Karolinska Institutet devoted the most in this domain. Professors Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Frihagen F, Parker MJ, and Rogmark C were the core authors in this field. The most productive journal was Injury International Journal of the Care of the Injured. Keywords were divided into four clusters: epidemiology and mortality, fracture prevention, internal-fixation and risk factors, and hip replacement. A trend of balanced and diversified development existed in these clusters. Keywords with the ongoing bursts, including “outcome,” “reoperation,” “complication,” “revision,” “displaced intracapsular,” “fracture,” and “adult,” are considered as the research hotspots in the future and deserve more attention.

Conclusions

The management of FNF in young patients is drawing more attention from orthopedic surgeons, and it is expected that these research topics may continue to be the research hotspots and focus in the near future.

Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a considerable challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of intracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and five other databases in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included total hip arthroplasties (THAs), hemiarthroplasties (HAs), internal fixation, and non-operative treatments. We excluded studies of people with hip fracture with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months, and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 119 studies (102 RCTS, 17 quasi-RCTs) with 17,653 participants with 17,669 intracapsular fractures in the review; 83% of fractures were displaced. The mean participant age ranged from 60 to 87 years and 73% were women.  After discussion with clinical experts, we selected 12 nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate, uncemented first-generation bipolar HA, uncemented modern bipolar HA, cemented modern bipolar HA, uncemented first-generation unipolar HA, uncemented modern unipolar HA, THA with single articulation, dual-mobility THA, pins, screws, and non-operative treatment. Seventy-five studies (with 11,855 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected cemented modern unipolar HA as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison. In order to provide a concise summary of the results, we report only network estimates when there was evidence of difference between treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias and when estimates included possible transitivity, particularly for internal fixation which included more undisplaced fractures. We also downgraded for incoherence, or inconsistency in indirect estimates, although this affected few estimates. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  We found that cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate and pins seemed to have the greatest likelihood of reducing mortality at 12 months. Overall, 23.5% of participants who received the reference treatment died within 12 months of surgery. Uncemented modern bipolar HA had higher mortality than the reference treatment (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; derived only from indirect evidence; low-certainty evidence), and THA with single articulation also had higher mortality (network estimate RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.32; derived from direct evidence from 2 studies with 225 participants, and indirect evidence; very low-certainty evidence). In the remaining treatments, the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low, and we noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at 12 months.  We found that THA (single articulation), cemented modern bipolar HA and uncemented modern bipolar HA seemed to have the greatest likelihood of improving HRQoL at 12 months. This network was comparatively sparse compared to other outcomes and the certainty of the evidence of differences between treatments was very low. We noted no evidence of any differences in HRQoL at 12 months, although estimates were imprecise. We found that arthroplasty treatments seemed to have a greater likelihood of reducing unplanned return to theatre than internal fixation and non-operative treatment. We estimated that 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment returned to theatre during the study follow-up. Compared to this treatment, we found low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a dynamic fixed angle plate (network estimate RR 4.63, 95% CI 2.94 to 7.30; from direct evidence from 1 study with 190 participants, and indirect evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre when treated with pins (RR 4.16, 95% CI 2.53 to 6.84; only from indirect evidence), screws (network estimate RR 5.04, 95% CI 3.25 to 7.82; from direct evidence from 2 studies with 278 participants, and indirect evidence), and non-operative treatment (RR 5.41, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.26; only from indirect evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of a tendency for an increased risk of unplanned return to theatre for all of the arthroplasty treatments, and in particular for THA, compared with cemented modern unipolar HA, with little evidence to suggest the size of this difference varied strongly between the arthroplasty treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, cemented modern arthroplasties tended to more often yield better outcomes than alternative treatments and may be a more successful approach than internal fixation. There is no evidence of a difference between THA (single articulation) and cemented modern unipolar HA in the outcomes measured in this review. THA may be an appropriate treatment for a subset of people with intracapsular fracture but we have not explored this further.

Internal fixation versus hip arthroplasty in patients with nondisplaced femoral neck fractures: short-term results from a geriatric trauma registry

Purpose

To determine whether internal fixation (IF) or hip arthroplasty (HA) is associated with superior outcomes in geriatric nondisplaced femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients.

Methods

Data from the Registry for Geriatric Trauma of the German Trauma Society (ATR-DGU) were analyzed (IF Group 449 and HA Group 1278 patients). In-hospital care and a 120-day postoperative follow-up were conducted. Primary outcomes, including mobility, residential status, reoperation rate, and a generic health status measure (EQ-5D score), and the secondary outcome of mortality were compared between groups. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess independent treatment group associations (odds ratios, ORs) with the primary and secondary end points.

Results

Patients in the HA group were older (83 vs. 81 years, p < 0.001) and scored higher on the Identification of Seniors at Risk screening (3 vs. 2, p < 0.001). We observed no differences in residential status, reoperation rate, EQ-5D score, or mortality between groups. After adjusting for key covariates, including prefracture ambulatory capacity, the mobility of patients in the HA group was more frequently impaired at the 120-day follow-up (OR 2.28, 95% confidence interval = 1.11–4.74).

Conclusion

Treatment with HA compared to treatment with IF led to a more than twofold increase in the adjusted odds of impaired ambulation at the short-term follow-up, while no significant associations with residential status, reoperation rate, EQ-5D index score, or mortality were observed. Thus, IF for geriatric nondisplaced FNFs was associated with superior mobility 120 days after surgery. However, before definitive treatment recommendations can be made, prospective, randomized, long-term studies must be performed to confirm our findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00068-021-01801-1.

Is percutaneous screw fixation really superior to non-operative management after valgus-impacted femoral neck fracture: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The optimal management of valgus-impacted femoral neck fractures remains controversial. Internal fixation is associated with significant rates of re-operation, while historical non-operative management strategies consisting of prolonged bed rest also resulted in patient morbidity. Our hypothesis was that screw fixation would have comparable failure rates to non-operative treatment and immediate mobilization for valgus-impacted femoral neck fractures.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort at a single academic Level I trauma center of patients with valgus-impacted femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA 31-B1) treated with percutaneous screw fixation (n = 97) or non-operatively (n = 28). Operative treatment consisted of percutaneous screw fixation. Non-operative treatment consisted of early mobilization. The primary outcome was a salvage operation. Patient demographics were assessed between groups.

RESULTS

More non-operatively treated patients were permitted unrestricted weight-bearing (WBAT; p = 0.002). There was no increase in complication rates or mortality, and return to previous ambulatory status was comparable between operatively and non-operatively treated patients. 35.7% (10/28) of non-operatively treated patients underwent a subsequent operation, compared to 15.5% (15/97) of patients with screw fixation (p = 0.03). Only WBAT was independently associated with treatment failure (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.2-8.3, p =0.02). WBAT was predictive of treatment failure only in the non-operatively treated group (64.3%, 9/14 WBAT vs 8.3%, 1/12 partial, p =0.005).

CONCLUSION

After controlling for weight-bearing restrictions, we found no difference in failure rates between non-operative treatment and screw fixation. Non-operative treatment with partial weight-bearing had low failure rates, comparable complication and mortality rates, and equivalent functional outcomes to operative treatment and is reasonable if a patient would like to avoid surgery and accepts the risk of subsequent arthroplasty. Overall, there were relatively high failure rates in all groups.