Treatment and outcomes of basicervical femoral neck fractures: A systematic review

Basicervical femoral neck fractures: an observational study derived from the Swedish Fracture Register

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Limited research has been conducted on basicervical femoral neck fractures (bFNFs). The importance of displacement in clinical outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to characterize patient demographics, degree of displacement, treatment, treatment failures, and reoperations in a cohort of fractures from the Swedish Fracture Register (SFR).

METHODS

1,260 fractures in 1,185 individuals ≥ 60 years who had a bFNF registered in the SFR at 6 orthopedic departments from 2011 to 2020 were screened through radiographic review. The final sample included 291 patients with a confirmed bFNF. The medical records of these 291 patients were reviewed. We assessed baseline characteristics, initial fracture dislocation, treatment methods, tip-apex distance, failures, reoperations, and mortality.

RESULTS

The mean age was 82 years (range 60-101, 55% women). 98 (34%) were undisplaced and 193 (66%) displaced. All patients underwent operative treatment. In the undisplaced group 95 (97%) patients received internal fixation (IF) and 3 (3%) had primary hip arthroplasty. In the displaced group 149 (77%) received IF and 41 (21%) had primary hip arthroplasty. 33 (11%) suffered treatment failure. When treating an undisplaced bFNF with IF, only 3 (3%) experienced treatment failure, in contrast to the 24 (16%) failure rate for a displaced bFNF.

CONCLUSION

Undisplaced bFNFs have a low failure rate when treated with IF. For displaced bFNF treated with IF the failure rate is considerably higher. There is a need for further investigation of classification, treatment, and outcome of bFNF.

Comparison of the Surgical Outcome between the Multiple Screw Fixation and Fixed Angle Devices for the Basicervical Femoral Neck Fractures

Introduction: Basicervical femoral neck fracture (FNF) is an uncommon type of femoral neck fracture and is associated with an increased risk of fixation failure due to its inherent instability. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical parameters and reoperation rate between the use of a multiple cannulated screw (MCS) and fixed angle device (FAD) in treating basicervical FNFs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 885 patients who underwent internal fixation between May 2004 and August 2019 to determine basicervical FNF with at least 12 months of follow-up. Among the identified 77 patients with basicervical FNF, 17 patients who underwent multiple cannulated screw (MCS) fixation and 36 patients who underwent fixed angle device (FAD) fixation were included. We compared the rates of fracture-site collapse and reoperations according to the fixation device. Results: Among the 53 patients with basicervical FNF, 13 patients (24.5%) sustained surgical complications (8 collapses of fracture site and 5 reoperations). The reoperation rate in the MCS group was significantly higher than that in the FAD group (23.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.016), without any significant difference in the collapse of the fracture site (11.8% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.642). Conclusions: Although basicervical FNF was rare among hip fractures, fracture site collapse was prevalent and prone to fixation failure. Surgeons should keep this in mind, and consider FAD for basicervical FNF.

Structure-mechanical analysis of various fixation constructs for basicervical fractures of the proximal femur and clinical implications; finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

This present study was conducted to determine the structural-mechanical stability of various fixation constructs through finite element (FE) analysis following simulation of a basicervical fracture and to introduce the clinical implications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We simulated fracture models by using a right synthetic femur (SAWBONES®). We imported the implant models into ANSYS® for placement in an optimal position. Five assembly models were constructed: (1) multiple cancellous screws (MCS), (2) FNS (femoral neck system®), (3) dynamic hip screw (DHS), (4) DHS with anti-rotation 7.0 screw (DHS + screw), and PFNA-II (Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-II®). The femur model's distal end was completely fixed and 7° abducted. We set the force vector at a 3° angle laterally and 15° posteriorly from the vertical ground. Analysis was done using Ansys® software with von Mises stress (VMS) in megapascals (MPa) and displacement (mm) RESULTS: The displacements of the proximal femur were 10.25 mm for MCS, 9.66 mm for DHS, 9.44 mm for DHS + screw, 9.86 mm for FNS, and 9.31 mm for PFNA-II. The maximum implant VMS was 148.94 MPa for MCS, 414.66 MPa for DHS, 385.59 MPa for DSH + screw, 464.07 MPa for FNS, and 505.07 MPa for PFNA-II. The maximum VMS at the fracture site was 621.13 MPa for MCS, 464.14 MPa for DHS, 64.51 MPa for DHS + screw, 344.54 MPa for FNS, and 647.49 MPa for PFNA-II. The maximum VMS at the fracture site was in the superior area with the high point around the posterior screw in the MCS, anterosuperior corner in the DHS, the posteroinferior site of the FNS, and posterosuperior site around the entry point in the PFNA-II. In the DHS + screw, the stresses were distributed evenly and disappeared at the maximum VMS fracture site.

CONCLUSION

Based on the fracture site and implant's stress distribution, the model receiving the optimal load was a DHS + screw construct, and the FNS implant could be applied to anatomically reduced fractures without comminution. Considering the high-stress concentration around the entry point, a PFNA-II fixation has a high probability of head-neck fragment rotational instability.