Jian-Xiong Ma1, Ming-Jie Kuang2, Fei Xing3, Yun-Long Zhao4, Heng-Ting Chen5, Lu-Kai Zhang6, Zheng-Rui Fan7, Chao Han8, Xin-Long Ma9. 1. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: mjx969@163.com. 2. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: doctorkmj@tmu.edu.cn. 3. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: lisomox@outlook.com. 4. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: zandom@126.com. 5. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: 1192602465@qq.com. 6. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: 13820852131@sina.cn. 7. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: 517494450@qq.com. 8. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: craborth@163.com. 9. Biomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China; Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: maxinlong8686@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Femoral neck fracture is considered a difficult fracture to treat and often gives rise to unsatisfactory treatment results. Cannulated cancellous screws (CCS) or a sliding hip screw (SHS) are the mainstream internal fixations used for osteosynthesis of femoral neck fractures. There is a need to integrate existing data through a meta-analysis to investigate the safety and effectiveness of CCS and SHS in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHOD: According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, we screened for the relevant studies by searching Google Scholar, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PubMed. The PICOS criteria was used to make sure the included studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Pooled data showed that there were no significant differences between the SHS and CCS groups for the Harris Hip Score. Significant differences were found between the SHS and CCS groups in terms of union time, postoperative complications, blood loss, operation time, incision length and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Although the SHS and CCS groups showed similar functional recovery in treatment of femoral neck fracture in terms of the Harris Hip Score, the SHS group showed fewer postoperative complications and faster union time for patients with femoral neck fractures. Therefore, compared with CCS, the use of SHS may be a more effective treatment of femoral neck fractures.
OBJECTIVE:Femoral neck fracture is considered a difficult fracture to treat and often gives rise to unsatisfactory treatment results. Cannulated cancellous screws (CCS) or a sliding hip screw (SHS) are the mainstream internal fixations used for osteosynthesis of femoral neck fractures. There is a need to integrate existing data through a meta-analysis to investigate the safety and effectiveness of CCS and SHS in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHOD: According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, we screened for the relevant studies by searching Google Scholar, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PubMed. The PICOS criteria was used to make sure the included studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Pooled data showed that there were no significant differences between the SHS and CCS groups for the Harris Hip Score. Significant differences were found between the SHS and CCS groups in terms of union time, postoperative complications, blood loss, operation time, incision length and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Although the SHS and CCS groups showed similar functional recovery in treatment of femoral neck fracture in terms of the Harris Hip Score, the SHS group showed fewer postoperative complications and faster union time for patients with femoral neck fractures. Therefore, compared with CCS, the use of SHS may be a more effective treatment of femoral neck fractures.
Authors: Yao Lu; Zhilong Huang; Yibo Xu; Qiang Huang; Cheng Ren; Ming Li; Zhong Li; Liang Sun; Hanzhong Xue; Kun Zhang; Qian Wang; Teng Ma Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 3.940
Authors: Vincenzo Giordano; Roger Pletsch Paes; Danilo Diniz Alves; Arthur Bonfim Amaral; William D Belangero; Marcos Giordano; Anderson Freitas; Hilton A Koch Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2018-04-24