Literature DB >> 34351048

Comparison of Early Clinical Results for Femoral Neck System and Cannulated Screws in the Treatment of Unstable Femoral Neck Fractures.

Xiao-Qiang Zhou1, Zhi-Qiang Li1, Ren-Jie Xu1, Yuan-Shi She1, Xiang-Xin Zhang1, Guang-Xiang Chen1, Xiao Yu1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare early clinical effects of the femoral neck system (FNS) and three cannulated screws for the treatment of patients with unstable femoral neck fractures.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis with pair matching of 81 patients who received FNS or cannulated screw internal fixation for Pauwels type-3 femoral neck fracture in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2019 was conducted. Patients who received FNS were the test group, and those who received cannulated screws comprised the control group. Matching requirements were as follows: same sex, similar age, and similar body mass index (BMI). A total of 30 pairs were successfully matched at a 1:1 ratio, including 12 males and 18 females. The average age of the patients in the FNS group was 54.53 ± 6.71 years. In the cannulated screw group, the average age of the patients was 53.14 ± 7.19 years. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, hospitalization cost, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, time to walking without crutches, Harris score, femoral head necrosis rate, and complication rate were compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Postoperative re-examination of radiographs showed satisfactory reduction in all patients, and all patients were followed up for 10-22 months. Those in the FNS group had lower postoperative VAS scores, earlier times to walking without crutches, higher Harris scores at the last follow-up, and lower complication rates (P < 0.05). VAS scores were lower in the FNS group (3.13 ± 1.07 scores) than in the cannulated screw group (3.77 ± 1.04 scores) (P = 0.018). Patients in the FNS group (5.23 ± 1.33 months) recovered to walking without crutches earlier than did those in the cannulated screw group (6.03 ± 1.45 months) (P<0.001). In addition, a statistically higher postoperative Harris score was detected in the FNS group (86.16 ± 7.26) than in the cannulated screw group (82.37 ± 7.52) (P = 0.039). Overall, a higher incidence of complications was observed in the cannulated screw group (9/30) than in the FNS group (2/30) (P = 0.042). However, intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization costs were greater in the FNS group (P < 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was greater in the FNS group (99.73 ± 4.69) than in the cannulated screw group (30.27 ± 9.04) (P<0.001). In addition, patients in the FNS group (46976 ± 2270 ¥) spent more on hospitalization costs than did those in the cannulated screw group (15626 ± 1732 ¥) (P<0.001). No statistically significant difference in operation time, hospital stay, or femoral head necrosis rate was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: For patients with unstable femoral neck fractures, FNS has better clinical efficacy than cannulated screws, though it is also more expensive.
© 2021 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cannulated screw; Clinical efficacy; Femoral neck fracture; Femoral neck system; Internal fixation

Year:  2021        PMID: 34351048     DOI: 10.1111/os.13098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Surg        ISSN: 1757-7853            Impact factor:   2.071


  8 in total

1.  Femoral neck system reduces surgical time and complications in adults with femoral neck fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ahmed Saad; Mohit Kumar Patralekh; Vijay Kumar Jain; Sagaurav Shrestha; Rajesh Botchu; Karthikeyan P Iyengar
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2022-06-11

2.  Femoral neck system versus cannulated screws for fixation of femoral neck fracture in young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Review 3.  Does the femoral neck system provide better outcomes compared to cannulated screws fixation for the management of femoral neck fracture in young adults? A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rajesh Kumar Rajnish; Amit Srivastava; Pratik M Rathod; Rehan Ul Haq; Sameer Aggarwal; Prasoon Kumar; Ish Kumar Dhammi; Ankit Dadra
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-05-11

4.  Comparison Between Femoral Neck Systems and Cannulated Cancellous Screws in Treating Femoral Neck Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Peng Tian; Lan Kuang; Zhi-Jun Li; Gui-Jun Xu; Xin Fu
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2022-07-06

5.  Biomechanical comparison of the femoral neck system versus InterTan nail and three cannulated screws for unstable Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture.

Authors:  Zheng Wang; Yong Yang; Gangning Feng; Haohui Guo; Zhirong Chen; Yaogeng Chen; Qunhua Jin
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 3.903

6.  Is Femoral Neck System a Valid Alternative for the Treatment of Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures in Adolescents? A Comparative Study of Femoral Neck System versus Cannulated Compression Screw.

Authors:  Yunan Lu; Federico Canavese; Guoxin Nan; Ran Lin; Yuling Huang; Nuoqi Pan; Shunyou Chen
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 2.948

Review 7.  Neck of femur fractures treated with the femoral neck system: outcomes of one hundred and two patients and literature review.

Authors:  Amit Davidson; Shlomo Blum; Elad Harats; Erick Kachko; Ahmad Essa; Ram Efraty; Amos Peyser; Peter V Giannoudis
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 3.479

8.  Comparing Perioperative Outcome Measures of the Dynamic Hip Screw and the Femoral Neck System.

Authors:  Marcel Niemann; Karl F Braun; Sufian S Ahmad; Ulrich Stöckle; Sven Märdian; Frank Graef
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-02-26       Impact factor: 2.430

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.