Long-Term Outcomes of Triple Cannulated Compression Screws Combined With Bone Graft Sleeve Parallel Implantation of DBM Crunch Internal Fixation for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures in Middle-Aged and Young Adults.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Peiyuan Wang, Zhiang Zhang, Zihang Zhao, Ziping Li, Lin Liu, Kuo Zhao, Lin Jin, Wei Chen, Shiqiang Zhang, Zhiyong Hou
{"title":"Long-Term Outcomes of Triple Cannulated Compression Screws Combined With Bone Graft Sleeve Parallel Implantation of DBM Crunch Internal Fixation for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures in Middle-Aged and Young Adults.","authors":"Peiyuan Wang, Zhiang Zhang, Zihang Zhao, Ziping Li, Lin Liu, Kuo Zhao, Lin Jin, Wei Chen, Shiqiang Zhang, Zhiyong Hou","doi":"10.1111/os.70169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>If the appropriate internal fixation surgical method is not adopted for femoral neck fractures in young people, it may lead to serious consequences such as poor fracture healing and femoral head necrosis, affecting the quality of life and working ability of young people. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct in-depth research on the internal fixation surgical methods. This study compared the therapeutic effects of triple cannulated screws combined with a bone graft sleeve for parallel implantation of DBM Crunch internal fixation (CCSBGS) and cannulated compression screws (CCS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medical records on the young and middle-aged patients with femoral neck fracture treated with two different internal fixation methods from January 2020 to June 2023 were collected and retrospectively analyzed in the Trauma Emergency Center of the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University. Two internal fixation groups are: CCSBGS group with 50 patients, 35 males and 15 females, aged (42.44 ± 14.07) years; CCS group with 80 males and 39 females, aged (41.5 ± 13.48) years. This study compared the outcome measures of two groups of patients, including Garden alignment index, Operation duration time, Intraoperative blood loss, Length of hospital stay, Postoperative complications, Femoral neck shortening, Postoperative ambulation time, Walking with sticks, Barthel score, and Harris score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant difference in blood loss between the CCS group and the CCSBGS group; at the same time, the amount of bleeding in the CCS group was lower than that in the CCSBGS group (p < 0.01). During the follow-up period, there was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the femoral head among the two groups (p < 0.05), 20 patients in the CCS group and 2 patients in the CCSBGS group developed osteonecrosis of the femoral head. At the last follow-up, the average degree of femoral neck shortening in the CCSBGS group [(0.49 ± 0.28) cm] was significantly lower than that in the CCS group [(0.87 ± 0.35) cm] (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the postoperative ambulation time of the CCSBGS group is earlier than that of the CCS group (p < 0.05). In addition, the CCSBGS group had the highest Barthel scores [(95.50 ± 2.90)] (p < 0.05). The average Harris score in the CCSBGS group [(92.52 ± 2.41)] was higher than that in the CCS group [(90.47 ± 2.88)] (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with CCSBGS and CCS, CCSBGS shows better efficacy in terms of quicker return to weight-bearing activities, preservation of femoral neck length, reduction of the rate of osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and overall enhancement of hip function.</p>","PeriodicalId":19566,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.70169","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: If the appropriate internal fixation surgical method is not adopted for femoral neck fractures in young people, it may lead to serious consequences such as poor fracture healing and femoral head necrosis, affecting the quality of life and working ability of young people. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct in-depth research on the internal fixation surgical methods. This study compared the therapeutic effects of triple cannulated screws combined with a bone graft sleeve for parallel implantation of DBM Crunch internal fixation (CCSBGS) and cannulated compression screws (CCS).

Methods: Medical records on the young and middle-aged patients with femoral neck fracture treated with two different internal fixation methods from January 2020 to June 2023 were collected and retrospectively analyzed in the Trauma Emergency Center of the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University. Two internal fixation groups are: CCSBGS group with 50 patients, 35 males and 15 females, aged (42.44 ± 14.07) years; CCS group with 80 males and 39 females, aged (41.5 ± 13.48) years. This study compared the outcome measures of two groups of patients, including Garden alignment index, Operation duration time, Intraoperative blood loss, Length of hospital stay, Postoperative complications, Femoral neck shortening, Postoperative ambulation time, Walking with sticks, Barthel score, and Harris score.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in blood loss between the CCS group and the CCSBGS group; at the same time, the amount of bleeding in the CCS group was lower than that in the CCSBGS group (p < 0.01). During the follow-up period, there was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the femoral head among the two groups (p < 0.05), 20 patients in the CCS group and 2 patients in the CCSBGS group developed osteonecrosis of the femoral head. At the last follow-up, the average degree of femoral neck shortening in the CCSBGS group [(0.49 ± 0.28) cm] was significantly lower than that in the CCS group [(0.87 ± 0.35) cm] (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the postoperative ambulation time of the CCSBGS group is earlier than that of the CCS group (p < 0.05). In addition, the CCSBGS group had the highest Barthel scores [(95.50 ± 2.90)] (p < 0.05). The average Harris score in the CCSBGS group [(92.52 ± 2.41)] was higher than that in the CCS group [(90.47 ± 2.88)] (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Compared with CCSBGS and CCS, CCSBGS shows better efficacy in terms of quicker return to weight-bearing activities, preservation of femoral neck length, reduction of the rate of osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and overall enhancement of hip function.

三空心加压螺钉联合植骨套筒平行植入DBM挤压内固定治疗中青年股骨颈骨折的远期疗效
目的:青年人股骨颈骨折如果不采用合适的内固定手术方法,可能会导致骨折愈合不良、股骨头坏死等严重后果,影响青年人的生活质量和工作能力。因此,深入研究内固定手术方法至关重要。本研究比较了三颗空心螺钉联合植骨套筒平行植入DBM Crunch内固定(CCSBGS)和空心压缩螺钉(CCS)的治疗效果。方法:收集2020年1月至2023年6月河北医科大学第三医院创伤急救中心采用两种不同内固定方法治疗的中青年股骨颈骨折患者的病历资料,进行回顾性分析。两组内固定分别为:CCSBGS组50例,男35例,女15例,年龄(42.44±14.07)岁;CCS组男性80例,女性39例,年龄(41.5±13.48)岁。本研究比较了两组患者的结局指标,包括Garden对齐指数、手术持续时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后并发症、股骨颈缩短、术后下床时间、手杖行走、Barthel评分和Harris评分。结果:CCS组与CCSBGS组失血量差异有统计学意义;同时,CCS组的出血量低于CCSBGS组(p)。结论:与CCSBGS和CCS相比,CCSBGS在更快恢复负重活动、保持股骨颈长度、降低股骨头坏死率、整体增强髋关节功能等方面具有更好的疗效。
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
Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
374
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedic Surgery (OS) is the official journal of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association, focusing on all aspects of orthopaedic technique and surgery. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in the following categories: Original Articles, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Guidelines, Editorials, Commentaries, Surgical Techniques, Case Reports and Meeting Reports.
×
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