Tratamiento quirúrgico de fractura subcapital de cadera no desplazada: Femoral Neck System vs. tornillos canulados. Estudio comparativo

Q3 Medicine
P. Lalueza-Andreu , Á. Martínez-García , P. Checa-Betegón , J. García-Coiradas , J.A. Valle-Cruz , F. Marco-Martínez
{"title":"Tratamiento quirúrgico de fractura subcapital de cadera no desplazada: Femoral Neck System vs. tornillos canulados. Estudio comparativo","authors":"P. Lalueza-Andreu ,&nbsp;Á. Martínez-García ,&nbsp;P. Checa-Betegón ,&nbsp;J. García-Coiradas ,&nbsp;J.A. Valle-Cruz ,&nbsp;F. Marco-Martínez","doi":"10.1016/j.recot.2024.09.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of using the Femoral Neck System (FNS) (DePuy Synthes®) versus the use of cannulated screws (CS) in the surgical treatment of non-displaced subcapital hip fractures.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A retrospective cohort study was conducted on non-displaced subcapital hip fractures treated with CS or FNS between 2020 and 2023, with a minimum follow-up of one year. A total of 28 patients were included, 14 treated with CS and 14 with FNS. Demographic, radiological, clinical, and functional variables were analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In the CS group, 64% were male, with a mean age of 66.5 years (SD 14.9) and an average follow-up of 22 months (range, 12-36 months). In the FNS group, 57% were male, with a median age of 60.8 years (SD 13.78) and an average follow-up of 16 months (range, 12-24 months).</div><div>Regarding functional outcomes, no significant differences were found between FNS and CS in the Harris scale: 94.21<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->11.55 for FNS and 96.50<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->6.9 for CS (p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.618).</div><div>The total postoperative complications (FNS/CS) were 7.1% versus 43%, and implant failure with conversion to total hip replacement was 0% versus 43%, both significantly higher in the CS group (p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.047; p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.016, respectively). The FNS also presented a lower rate of avascular necrosis (0% versus 11.1%, p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.391) and nonunion (0% versus 20%, p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.163), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Although both treatment methods, cannulated screws and the FNS, showed similar short-term functional outcomes in the management of undisplaced subcapital femoral fractures, the FNS demonstrated a significantly lower rate of complications and reoperations. These results suggest that the FNS could be considered a safer and more effective option compared to cannulated screws.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":39664,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","volume":"69 4","pages":"Pages 365-371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888441524001541","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of using the Femoral Neck System (FNS) (DePuy Synthes®) versus the use of cannulated screws (CS) in the surgical treatment of non-displaced subcapital hip fractures.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on non-displaced subcapital hip fractures treated with CS or FNS between 2020 and 2023, with a minimum follow-up of one year. A total of 28 patients were included, 14 treated with CS and 14 with FNS. Demographic, radiological, clinical, and functional variables were analyzed.

Results

In the CS group, 64% were male, with a mean age of 66.5 years (SD 14.9) and an average follow-up of 22 months (range, 12-36 months). In the FNS group, 57% were male, with a median age of 60.8 years (SD 13.78) and an average follow-up of 16 months (range, 12-24 months).
Regarding functional outcomes, no significant differences were found between FNS and CS in the Harris scale: 94.21 ± 11.55 for FNS and 96.50 ± 6.9 for CS (p = 0.618).
The total postoperative complications (FNS/CS) were 7.1% versus 43%, and implant failure with conversion to total hip replacement was 0% versus 43%, both significantly higher in the CS group (p = 0.047; p = 0.016, respectively). The FNS also presented a lower rate of avascular necrosis (0% versus 11.1%, p = 0.391) and nonunion (0% versus 20%, p = 0.163), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

Although both treatment methods, cannulated screws and the FNS, showed similar short-term functional outcomes in the management of undisplaced subcapital femoral fractures, the FNS demonstrated a significantly lower rate of complications and reoperations. These results suggest that the FNS could be considered a safer and more effective option compared to cannulated screws.
非脱位髋关节下骨折的手术治疗:股骨颈系统与套管螺钉。比较研究。
研究目的本研究旨在比较使用股骨颈系统(FNS)(DePuy Synthes®)与使用套管螺钉(CS)手术治疗非脱位髋关节下骨折的疗效:一项回顾性队列研究针对 2020 年至 2023 年期间使用 CS 或 FNS 治疗的非置换性髋关节下骨折进行,随访至少一年。共纳入 28 例患者,其中 14 例接受了 CS 治疗,14 例接受了 FNS 治疗。对人口统计学、放射学、临床和功能变量进行了分析:在 CS 组中,64% 为男性,平均年龄为 66.5 岁(SD 14.9),平均随访时间为 22 个月(12-36 个月)。在 FNS 组中,57% 为男性,中位年龄为 60.8 岁(标准差为 13.78),平均随访时间为 16 个月(范围为 12-24 个月)。在功能结果方面,FNS 和 CS 的 Harris 评分无明显差异:FNS 为 94.21 ± 11.55,CS 为 96.50 ± 6.9(P=0.618)。术后总并发症(FNS/CS)分别为 7.1%和 43%,植入失败转为全髋关节置换的比例分别为 0% 和 43%,CS 组均显著高于 FNS 组(P=0.047;P=0.016)。FNS组的血管坏死率(0%对11.1%,P=0.391)和不愈合率(0%对20%,P=0.163)也较低,但这些差异未达到统计学意义:虽然两种治疗方法--套管螺钉和股骨颈系统(FNS)--在治疗未移位股骨下骨折方面显示出相似的短期功能效果,但股骨颈系统的并发症和再手术率明显更低。这些结果表明,与套管螺钉相比,FNS可被视为更安全、更有效的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
审稿时长
51 weeks
期刊介绍: Es una magnífica revista para acceder a los mejores artículos de investigación en la especialidad y los casos clínicos de mayor interés. Además, es la Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad, y está incluida en prestigiosos índices de referencia en medicina.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信