| Literature DB >> 32462816 |
Fa-Xin Ju1,2, Rui-Xing Hou1, Jin Xiong3, Hong-Fei Shi3, Yi-Xin Chen3, Jun-Fei Wang3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of cannulated internal fixation in patients who sustain femoral neck fracture (FNF) and risk factors influencing the outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Femoral neck fracture; Garden fracture type; Harris hip score; Internal fixation; Pauwels angle
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32462816 PMCID: PMC7307235 DOI: 10.1111/os.12683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop Surg ISSN: 1757-7853 Impact factor: 2.071
Relationship between necrosis rate of femoral head and Garden classification
| Garden classification | Total number (cases) | Femoral head necrosis (cases) | Necrosis rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| II | 35 | 3 | 8.6 |
| III | 24 | 2 | 8.3 |
| IV | 14 | 2 | 14.3 |
χ2 = 0.44,P > 0.05
Among the three cases, two were found necrosis 2 years after internal fixation, one was found necrosis 1.5 – 2.0 years after internal fixation, only one case underwent arthroplasty.
Among the two cases, one was found necrosis 5 years after internal fixation, one was found necrosis 2 years after internal fixation and treated with arthroplasty.
Both the two cases were found necrosis 1.5 – 2 years, and treated with arthroplasty.
Relationship between necrosis rate of femoral head and Pauwel classification
| Pauwels classification | Total number (cases) | Femoral head necrosis (cases) | Necrosis rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| II | 46 | 2 | 4.3 |
| III | 12 | 5 | 41.7 |
The two cases were found necrosis after 2 years and 5 years respectively. Neither of them suffered arthroplasty. Pauwels I vs. II: χ2 = 0.67, P > 0.05; Pauwels I vs. III: χ2 = 5.58, P < 0.05. Pauwels II vs. III: χ2 = 12.498, P < 0.05.
Figure 1Imaging examinations of a 70‐year‐old woman with Garden III and Pauwels III type of femoral neck fracture (FNF). Preoperative radiograph (A). Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan (B). Preoperative two‐dimensional CT reconstruction (C). Preoperative three‐dimensional CT reconstruction (D, E). Radiograph 2 days after internal fixation (F, G). Radiograph taken at the 7‐year follow‐up reveals that the bone healed well without femoral osteonecrosis, with a Harris hip score of 99 (H, I).
Figure 2Imaging examinations of a 74‐year‐old woman with Garden III and Pauwels I type of FNF. Preoperative radiograph (A). Postoperative CT scan (B). Preoperative two‐dimensional CT reconstruction (C). Preoperative three‐dimensional CT reconstruction (D). Radiograph 2 days after internal fixation (E). Radiograph 6 months after internal fixation (F). Radiograph taken at the 7‐year follow‐up reveals that the bone healed well without femoral osteonecrosis, with a Harris hip score of 96 (G, H, I).
Figure 3Imaging examinations of a 75‐year‐old woman with Garden III and Pauwels III type of FNF. Preoperative radiograph (A, B). Postoperative CT scan (C, D). Preoperative two‐dimensional CT reconstruction (E). P Radiograph 2 days after internal fixation (F, G). Radiograph taken at the 10‐year follow‐up reveals that the bone healed well without femoral osteonecrosis, with a Harris hip score of 90 (H, I).
Relationship between garden classification and Harris scores
| Garden classification | Cases (cases) | Score ≥ 90 (cases) | 80 < score < 89 (cases) | Score ≤ 79 (cases) | Rate of excellence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| II | 35 | 25 | 8 | 2a | 71.4 |
| III | 24 | 17 | 4 | 3b | 70.8 |
| IV | 14 | 9 | 3 | 2c | 64.3 |
χ2 = 1.43, P > 0.05
Note: a One case received intestinal colostomy which might affect the Harris scores; another was found femoral head necrosis and received joint replacement. b,c Among the 3 cases, 2 complaint of arthritis, which might affect the score; 1 has received joint replacement because of femoral head necrosis.
Comparison of hip joint Harris scores in different age groups
| Age (years) | Cases (cases) | Score > 90 (cases) | Score < 90(cases) | Rate of excellence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 ‐69 | 43 | 28 | 15 | 65.1 |
| 70 ‐79 | 23 | 16 | 7 | 69.6 |
| ≥80 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 100.0 |
χ2 = 3.48, P > 0.05.
Comparison of hip joint Harris scores in different Pauwels classification groups
| Pauwels classification | Cases | Score ≥ 90 (cases) | 80 < score ≤ 89 (cases) | Score ≤ 79 (cases) | 79 < Score ≤ 89(cases) | Rate of excellence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 15 | 13 | 2a | 0 | 0 | 86.7 |
| II | 46 | 33 | 13b | 0 | 0 | 71.7 |
| III | 12 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5c | 41.7 |
Note: aAmong the 2 cases, one received enterostomy that might affect the Pauwel score; bAmong the 13 cases, one suffered arthritis and one showed unhealed fracture, both might affect the Pauwel score; cAmong the 5 cases, one suffered coxitis that might affect the Pauwel score, and he then received arthroplasty afterwards.
Pauwels I vs. II: χ2 = 1.36, P > 0.05; Pauwels I vs. III: χ2 = 9.67, P < 0.05. Pauwels II vs. III: χ2 = 25.88, P < 0.05.