Internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. Dynamic Hip and Gouffon screws compared in 73 patients

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 implants for intracapsular hip fractures in older adults

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of internal fixation implants used in joint-preserving surgery for intracapsular hip fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effects (benefits and harms) of different implants for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and National Technical Information Service 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 implants used for internal fixation of fragility intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in older adults. Types of implants were smooth pins (these include pins with fold-out hooks), screws, or fixed angle plates. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or were the result of a high energy trauma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as early mortality, and at 12 months since surgery), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 studies (32 RCTs, six quasi-RCTs) with 8585 participants with 8590 intracapsular fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 60 to 84 years; 73% were women, and 38% of fractures were undisplaced. We report here the findings of the four main comparisons, which were between different categories of implants. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide), study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity). Smooth pins versus fixed angle plate (four studies, 1313 participants) We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility with no more than one walking stick (1 study, 112 participants), early mortality (1 study, 383 participants), mortality at 12 months (2 studies, 661 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (3 studies, 736 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, or HRQoL. Screws versus fixed angle plates (11 studies, 2471 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of no clinically important differences between the two implant types in functional status using WOMAC (MD -3.18, 95% CI -6.35 to -0.01; 2 studies, 498 participants; range of scores from 0 to 96, lower values indicate better function), and HRQoL using EQ-5D (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 2 studies, 521 participants; range -0.654 (worst), 0 (dead), 1 (best)). We also found low-certainty evidence showing little or no difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.26; 11 studies, 2321 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility (1 study, 70 participants), and early mortality (3 studies, 467 participants). No studies reported on ADL or delirium. Screws versus smooth pins (seven studies, 1119 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1005 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in early mortality (3 studies, 584 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (5 studies, 862 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, HRQoL, or mobility. Screws or smooth pins versus fixed angle plates (15 studies, 3784 participants) In this comparison, we combined data from the first two comparison groups. We found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two groups of implants in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI.083 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; 14 studies, 3057 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two groups of implants in independent mobility (2 studies, 182 participants), and early mortality (4 studies, 850 participants). We found no additional evidence to support the findings for functional status or HRQoL as reported in 'Screws versus fixed angle plates'. No studies reported ADL or delirium.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between screws and fixed angle plates in functional status, HRQoL, mortality at 12 months, or unplanned return to theatre; and between screws and pins in mortality at 12 months. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for the outcomes for which data were available for the smooth pins versus fixed angle plates comparison, as well as the other outcomes for which data were available for the screws and fixed angle plates, and screws and pins comparisons means we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for these outcomes. Additional RCTs would increase the certainty of the evidence. We encourage such studies to report outcomes consistent with the core outcome set for hip fracture, including long-term quality of life indicators such as ADL and mobility.

Treatment of femoral neck fractures: sliding hip screw or cannulated screws? A meta-analysis

Purpose

Femoral neck fractures are still unsolved problems nowadays; sliding hip screw (SHS) and cannulated compression screw (CCS) are the most commonly used devices. We evaluated the clinical outcomes and complications in the treatment of femoral neck fractures between SHS and CCS in this meta-analysis to find which is better.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library up to 24 August 2020 and retrieved any studies comparing sliding hip screw and cannulated compression screw in treatment of femoral neck fractures; the main outcomes and complications were extracted from the studies which were included.

Results

Nine studies involving 1662 patients (828 patients in the SHS group and 834 patients in the CCS group) were included in this study. SHS had higher rate of avascular necrosis (RR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.08–1.56, p = 0.005), and CCS had higher rate of implant removal (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.43–0.93, p = 0.02). No significant statistical difference in non-union, implant failure, infection, replacement, mortality, orthopedic complications, non-orthopedic complications, and total revision between SHS and CCS group.

Conclusion

Both devices have their pros and cons; SHS had a higher rate of avascular necrosis, and CCS had a higher rate of implant removal rate. No significant statistical difference in non-union, implant failure, infection, replacement, mortality, orthopedic complications, non-orthopedic complications, and total revision between SHS and CCS group.

Dynamic hip screws versus cannulated screws for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Dynamic hip screw (DHS) and cannulated screws (CS) are widely used for femoral neck fractures. However, there is no definite result as to which surgical method bring less complications. We performed this study to compare the complication (mortality, non-union, avascular necrosis (AVN), and revision) of DHS and CS for the treatment of femoral neck fractures patients.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other relevant studies related the comparison of DHS versus CS for femoral neck fractures from inception to Jan 7, 2020. The quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS), respectively. The meta-analysis was performed by the RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs and seven retrospective cohort studies were included for meta-analysis. CS was found to be superior to DHS with respect to AVN rate (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.08-1.99; p = 0.01, I² = 0%). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality, non-union, and revision (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

DHS and CS have similar complication including mortality, revision rate, and non-union, but CS has superior to DHS on ANV. However, further studies are required to provide more robust evidence owing to some limitations.

Sliding hip screws versus cancellous screws for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Both sliding hip screws (SHS) and cancellous screws are used in the surgical management of intracapsular femoral neck fracture. However, there is paucity of information as to which is the superior treatment modality. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis study to compare the clinical outcomes of SHS and cancellous screws for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in adult patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL, up to December 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing the clinical outcomes of SHS and cancellous screws for femoral neck fractures were retrieved with no language or publication year restrictions. Data retrieved included operative details, nonunion rate, avascular necrosis, reoperation, infection and mortality, hip pain, functional hip scores, and medical complications. These were pooled as risk ratio or mean difference (MD) with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by Chi-square test.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 1934 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled estimate showed that the SHS group was associated with more intraoperative blood loss (MD = 110.01 ml, 95% CI [52.42, 167.60], p = 0.00002) than the cancellous screws. There was no significant difference in terms of operative time, postoperative hip function, nonunion, avascular necrosis, reoperation rate, infection, fracture healing, hip pain, medical complications, and mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

Based on our study, the cancellous screws group was associated with less intraoperative blood loss in comparison with the SHS group. No other significant differences were found between the two interventions.

Fracture fixation in the operative management of hip fractures (FAITH): an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes.

METHODS

For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813.

FINDINGS

Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·63-1·09; p=0·18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1·91, 1·06-3·44; p=0·0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0·82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0·41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0·79).

INTERPRETATION

In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians' Services Incorporated.

Lacking evidence for performance of implants used for proximal femoral fractures - A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of the long-term performance of implants used in trauma surgery relies on post-marked clinical studies since no registry based implant assessment exists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the evidence of performance of implants currently used for treating proximal femoral fractures (PFF) in Denmark.

METHOD

PubMed was searched for clinical studies on primary PFF with follow-up ≥12 months, reporting implant-related failure and evaluating one of following: DHS, CHS, HipLoc, Gamma3, IMHS, InterTan, PFN, PFNA or PTN.

LIMITS

English language and publication date after 1st of January 1990.

RESULTS

All studies were evidence level II or III. 30 publications for SHS were found: 13 of CHS, 15 of DHS and 2 of HipLoc. In total CHS was evaluated in 1110 patients (900 prospectively), DHS in 2486 (567 prospectively) and HipLoc in 251 (all prospectively). Fifty-four publications for nails were found: 13 of Gamma3, 7 of IMHS, 5 of InterTan, 10 of PFN, 24 of PFNA and 0 of PTN. In total Gamma3 was evaluated in 1088 patients (829 prospectively), IMHS in 1543 (210 prospectively), InterTan in 595 (585 prospectively), PFN in 716 (557 prospectively), PFNA in 1762 (1018 prospectively) and PTN in 0.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical evidence behind the current implants used for proximal femoral fractures is weak considering the number of implants used worldwide. Sporadic evaluation is not sufficient to identify long term problems. A systematic post market surveillance of implants used for fracture treatment, preferable by a national register, is necessary in the future.

Young femoral neck fractures: are we measuring outcomes that matter?

INTRODUCTION

Femoral neck fractures in younger aged patients are particularly devastating injuries with profound impairments of quality of life and function. As there are multiple differences in patient and injury characteristics between young and elderly femoral neck fracture patients, the geriatric hip fracture literature is unlikely to be generalisable to patients under age 60. We conducted a systematic review to determine if clinically relevant outcome measures have been used in previously published clinical studies of internal fixation in young adults with femoral neck fractures.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search using multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify studies which used internal fixation for the management of femoral neck fractures in patients between the ages of 15 to 60. Eligibility screening and data abstraction were performed in duplicate. We classified the reported outcomes into the following categories: operative and hospital outcomes, radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes, and functional outcomes and health-related quality of life. We calculated the frequencies of reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Fort-two studies met our inclusion criteria. Operative and hospital outcomes were poorly reported with less than one-quarter of studies reporting relevant data. Important radiographic outcomes were also inadequately reported with only one-third of studies reporting the quality of the fracture reduction, and methods for assessment were highly variable. The assessment of avascular necrosis was reported in almost all the included studies (95.2%); however, the assessment of nonunion was only reported in three-quarters of the studies. Re-operations were reported in 73.8% of the included studies and the assessment of fracture healing was only reported in two-thirds of the studies. Less than half of the studies reported functional outcomes or health-related quality of life (overall patient evaluation scales and systems (45.2%), patient functional outcomes (30.9%), and health-related quality of life (4.8%).

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review found that the assessment of clinically relevant outcomes in the young femoral neck fracture literature is lacking, which makes utilising the literature to guide clinical practice challenging. Future studies should aim to include important radiographic measures, fracture-healing complications, functional outcomes, and health-related quality of life during any assessment of young femoral neck fracture treatment.

Fixation using alternative implants for the treatment of hip fractures (FAITH): design and rationale for a multi-centre randomized trial comparing sliding hip screws and cancellous screws on revision surgery rates and quality of life in the treatment of femoral neck fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a common type of fragility fracture that afflict 293,000 Americans (over 5,000 per week) and 35,000 Canadians (over 670 per week) annually. Despite the large population impact the optimal fixation technique for low energy femoral neck fractures remains controversial. The primary objective of the FAITH study is to assess the impact of cancellous screw fixation versus sliding hip screws on rates of revision surgery at 24 months in individuals with femoral neck fractures. The secondary objective is to determine the impact on health-related quality of life, functional outcomes, health state utilities, fracture healing, mortality and fracture-related adverse events.

METHODS/DESIGN

FAITH is a multi-centre, multi-national randomized controlled trial utilizing minimization to determine patient allocation. Surgeons in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia will recruit a total of at least 1,000 patients with low-energy femoral neck fractures. Using central randomization, patients will be allocated to receive surgical treatment with cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Patient outcomes will be assessed at one week (baseline), 10 weeks, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post initial fixation. We will independently adjudicate revision surgery and complications within 24 months of the initial fixation. Outcome analysis will be performed using a Cox proportional hazards model and likelihood ratio test.

DISCUSSION

This study represents major international efforts to definitively resolve the treatment of low-energy femoral neck fractures. This trial will not only change current Orthopaedic practice, but will also set a benchmark for the conduct of future Orthopaedic trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The FAITH trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT00761813).

Prospective and comparative analysis of internal fixation of femoral neck fractures with or without vascularized iliac graft in young adults

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 surgical approaches for femoral neck fractures in young adults: internal fixation with or without a vascularized iliac graft. Between January 1998 and December 2008, seventy-eight patients presented with a Garden type III (n=38) or IV (n=40) femoral neck fracture. Thirty-eight patients were women and 40 were men, with an average age of 28 years (range, 16-38 years). Fractures were caused by fall injury (n=24), motor vehicle accident (n=36), and heavy weight lifting (n=18). Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A underwent internal fixation with 2 cannulated compression screws combined with an iliac graft supported by the ascending branch of the lateral femoral circumflex artery (n=44), and group B underwent internal fixation with 3 cannulated compression screws (n=34). Average follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 2-8 years), and mean Harris Hip Score was 92 (range, 62-100) in group A and 84 (range, 40-100) in group B. Average fracture healing time at final follow-up was 4.4 months in group A and 6 months in group B. Two (4.5%) cases of osteonecrosis of the femoral head occurred in group A, and 8 (23.5%) cases occurred in group B. Internal fixation with 2 cannulated compression screws combined with an iliac graft supported by the ascending branch of the lateral femoral circumflex artery is an effective surgical approach for treating femoral neck fractures in young adults to minimize the occurrence of fracture nonunion and osteonecrosis of the femoral head and to facilitate bone healing and functional recovery of the hip.

Poor citation of prior evidence in hip fracture trials

BACKGROUND

Failure to cite prior evidence in the medical literature may result in publication redundancy and inefficient use of research funding. We evaluated trials in which internal fixation was compared with arthroplasty for the treatment of hip fractures in order to determine the extent to which these randomized trials cited all relevant previous trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for all relevant articles on four topics: internal fixation compared with arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty, sliding hip screws compared with other fixation devices, and surgical delay of hip fracture treatment. We determined the proportion of previous studies that were cited in comparison with the total number of previous studies that were citable (i.e., the citation rate) as well as the proportion of times that a study was cited in comparison with the total number of times that it could have been cited (i.e., the hit rate). A cumulative meta-analysis was performed for the "internal fixation compared with arthroplasty" topic to determine whether compelling evidence favoring one intervention existed at an earlier time.

RESULTS

In total, sixty studies were assessed and yielded an overall citation rate of 48%. All "highly cited" studies reported a positive result (favoring arthroplasty), and 60% were published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American or British volume). The results of a study and the journal of publication significantly affected the hit rate (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of studies of hip fracture treatment suggests poor citation of the previous literature. Studies in higher-impact journals with positive results are more likely to be cited in subsequent studies. Therefore, redundancy in publication and unnecessary surgical trials often occur.

Using a cannulated screw as a drill guide and sleeve: a simple technique for multiple-screw fixation for intracapsular femoral neck fracture

Management of femoral neck fractures is a challenge to orthopedic surgeons. Anatomical reduction and stable fixation is mandatory for nondisplaced or impacted intracapsular femoral neck fractures. This article introduces a simple method of parallel screw fixation for intracapsular femoral neck fracture based on the AO technique.We used a cannulated screw as a drill guide and sleeve rather than a commercial kit. With the 2-plane radiographic images, the surgeon could fine-tune the cannulated screw to direct the guide pin insertion and avoid deflection. Then the screw could be inserted for permanent fixation. This method accelerated the procedure and minimized the incisions and soft tissue dissection. The short-term results of 11 patients were compared with those of patients managed with the conventional screw fixation technique and the patients fixed with the dynamic hip system with an anti-rotation screw.This minimally invasive technique is time saving, easy to apply, and useful when commercial kits are unavailable. It facilitates and simplifies the minimally invasive parallel screw fixation procedure for intracapsular femoral neck fractures.

Internal fixation of undisplaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a retrospective comparison of fixation methods

BACKGROUND

There has been no report related to comparison of fixation methods using minimally invasive dynamic hip screw (MIDHS), conventional dynamic hip screw (CDHS), and multiple cannulated screws (MCS) for treating the undisplaced femoral neck fractures.

METHODS

The study retrospectively evaluates the comparison of fixation methods. Ninety elderly patients (>60 years) with the undisplaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures were treated with osteosynthesis by either dynamic hip screw (DHS) or MCS. The patient distribution was regarded as randomized. A new minimally invasive technique of DHS (MIDHS) was presented. Pauwels' classification was used to evaluate the fracture verticality. Singh index was used to evaluate the bone quality. All patients were followed up retrospectively for at least 12 months to compare the clinical results among the MIDHS, CDHS, and MCS groups.

RESULTS

Pauwels types and Singh index were similar among the three groups (all p values >/=0.78). The CDHS group had significantly larger wound incision, greater hemoglobin level drop, and longer hospital stay than either the MIDHS or MCS groups (all p values </=0.014). Differences in hip score, incision length, surgery time, hemoglobin level drop, and hospital stay between the MIDHS and MCS groups were not significant (all p values >/=0.28). The MIDHS group showed a trend of an increased rate of overall success compared with the MCS group, although this was not statistically significant (97% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

CDHS had more disadvantages related to more soft tissue stripping than either MIDHS or MCS. MIDHS showed a trend of an increased rate of overall success in an elderly patient with undisplaced femoral neck fracture when compared with MCS.

Surgical treatment of undisplaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly

The study was a retrospective evaluation and comparison. Eighty-four elderly patients (> 60 years) with undisplaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures were treated with osteosynthesis with either dynamic hip screws (DHS) or multiple cannulated screws (MCS). The Singh index was used to evaluate bone quality. All patients were followed up retrospectively for at least 12 months. The clinical results were compared between the DHS and MCS groups. Both groups were similar in respect of injury mechanisms, mean Singh index, injury-surgery interval, gender and age (all p values > or = 0.29). The MCS group had significantly smaller wound incisions, less haemoglobin level drops, lower blood transfusion rates and shorter hospital stays than the DHS group (all p values < or = 0.008). However, the DHS group had a higher rate of overall success when compared to the MCS group (97.5% versus 84.1%, p=0.04). In conclusion, although DHS fixation requires a larger skin incision and more soft tissue dissection, its use in elderly patients with osteoporosis is recommended due to simple, efficacy and high overall success rate.

Internal fixation implants for intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults

BACKGROUND

Numerous different implants with screws, pins and side plates have been used for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine from randomised trials which implant is superior for the internal fixation of intracapsular proximal femoral fractures.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register. The date of the most recent search was December 2000.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing different implants for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, by use of a ten item scale, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trialists. After grouping by implant type, comparable groups of trials were subgrouped and where appropriate, data were pooled using the fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies involving 5269 participants (5274 fractures) were included in the study. Considerable variation in the quality of methodology between studies was found and biases due to familiarity with some of the implants were noted. None of the implants tested were found to be significantly superior for any of the outcome measures related to fracture healing complications or mortality. The sliding hip screw was found to take longer to insert and to have an increased operative blood loss compared with multiple screws or pins.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No clear conclusions can be made on the choice of implant for internal fixation of intracapsular fractures from the available evidence within randomised trials.

Choice of implant for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. Meta-analysis of 25 randomised trials including 4,925 patients

We reviewed all randomised trials comparing different implants for treating intracapsular fractures of the hip and, where possible, the data were combined. 25 randomised trials were identified involving 4,925 patients. Screws appeared to be superior to pins. It was not possible to determine the optimum number or type of screws. No advantage was shown for an implant with a side-plate.