Femoral Shaft Fragility Fractures: Peri-Implant Fracture Risk Mitigated by Femoral Neck Protection.

The Iowa orthopaedic journal Pub Date : 2026-01-01
William D Lack, Micah Christenson, Michael Murphy, Zac Novaczyk, Nick Bostrom, Patrick Mark, Kaden Kunz, Hobie Summers, Joseph Cohen, Mai P Nguyen
{"title":"Femoral Shaft Fragility Fractures: Peri-Implant Fracture Risk Mitigated by Femoral Neck Protection.","authors":"William D Lack, Micah Christenson, Michael Murphy, Zac Novaczyk, Nick Bostrom, Patrick Mark, Kaden Kunz, Hobie Summers, Joseph Cohen, Mai P Nguyen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite their association with high morbidity and mortality rates, limited data is available regarding subsequent fracture after femoral shaft fragility fractures. Specifically, two clinically important questions remain unanswered: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fractures following femoral shaft fragility fractures? (2) Is fixation protecting the proximal femur associated with a lower cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fracture compared to when the proximal femur is not protected?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at four level 1 trauma centers. Patients aged 50 years or older treated with reduction and fixation of a low energy femoral shaft fracture between 2005 to 2024 were included in this review.Cases were categorized by whether fixation protected the proximal femur. Descriptive statistics were reported, and Kaplan Meier survival analyses assessed associations of patient, injury and treatment characteristics with the main outcome of cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant fracture. Statistical significance was considered for p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 245 patients with a median age of 75 years old and interquartile range (IQR) 65 to 83, 192 (78.4%) women, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index 4 (IQR 3 to 6). Assessment via the AO/OTA classification revealed 193 32A, 34 32B, and 18 32C fractures. The overall rate of subsequent proximal femur fracture was less with fixation that protected the proximal femur (0/119, 0%) than without (6/126, 4.8%), p = 0.030. Without fixation protecting the proximal femur, the cumulative incidence of proximal femur fracture climbed to 6.9% within 10 months of femoral shaft fracture and was significantly greater than a sustained 0% incidence when fixation protected the proximal femur, log-rank p = 0.015. Proximal femur fracture was not associated with age, sex, comorbidity burden or AO/OTA classification (p > 0.05 for all).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Without fixation protecting the proximal femur, approximately 1 in 15 patients treated for a femoral shaft fracture sustained a proximal femur fracture within 10 months of fixation of their shaft fracture. Protecting the proximal femur reduces the cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fracture and should be considered when possible.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>","PeriodicalId":94233,"journal":{"name":"The Iowa orthopaedic journal","volume":"46 1","pages":"261-266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13389484/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Iowa orthopaedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite their association with high morbidity and mortality rates, limited data is available regarding subsequent fracture after femoral shaft fragility fractures. Specifically, two clinically important questions remain unanswered: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fractures following femoral shaft fragility fractures? (2) Is fixation protecting the proximal femur associated with a lower cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fracture compared to when the proximal femur is not protected?

Methods: A multi-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at four level 1 trauma centers. Patients aged 50 years or older treated with reduction and fixation of a low energy femoral shaft fracture between 2005 to 2024 were included in this review.Cases were categorized by whether fixation protected the proximal femur. Descriptive statistics were reported, and Kaplan Meier survival analyses assessed associations of patient, injury and treatment characteristics with the main outcome of cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant fracture. Statistical significance was considered for p < 0.05.

Results: There were 245 patients with a median age of 75 years old and interquartile range (IQR) 65 to 83, 192 (78.4%) women, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index 4 (IQR 3 to 6). Assessment via the AO/OTA classification revealed 193 32A, 34 32B, and 18 32C fractures. The overall rate of subsequent proximal femur fracture was less with fixation that protected the proximal femur (0/119, 0%) than without (6/126, 4.8%), p = 0.030. Without fixation protecting the proximal femur, the cumulative incidence of proximal femur fracture climbed to 6.9% within 10 months of femoral shaft fracture and was significantly greater than a sustained 0% incidence when fixation protected the proximal femur, log-rank p = 0.015. Proximal femur fracture was not associated with age, sex, comorbidity burden or AO/OTA classification (p > 0.05 for all).

Conclusion: Without fixation protecting the proximal femur, approximately 1 in 15 patients treated for a femoral shaft fracture sustained a proximal femur fracture within 10 months of fixation of their shaft fracture. Protecting the proximal femur reduces the cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fracture and should be considered when possible.

Level of evidence: III.

股骨干脆性骨折:股骨颈保护可降低植入物周围骨折风险。
背景:尽管它们与高发病率和死亡率相关,但关于股骨干脆性骨折后继发骨折的数据有限。具体来说,两个重要的临床问题仍未得到解答:(1)股骨骨干脆性骨折后股骨近端种植体周围骨折的累计发生率是多少?(2)与未保护股骨近端相比,保护股骨近端固定是否与较低的股骨近端植入物周围骨折累积发生率相关?方法:在4个一级创伤中心进行多中心回顾性队列研究。在2005年至2024年间,年龄在50岁及以上的低能量股骨干骨折患者接受了复位和固定治疗。根据固定是否保护股骨近端来分类病例。描述性统计报告,Kaplan Meier生存分析评估了患者、损伤和治疗特征与近端种植体周围骨折累积发生率的主要结局之间的关系。结果:245例患者中位年龄为75岁,四分位数范围(IQR)为65 ~ 83,192例(78.4%)为女性,Charlson共病指数中位数为4 (IQR)为3 ~ 6。通过AO/OTA分类评估发现32A骨折193例,32B骨折34例,32C骨折18例。保护股骨近端固定后股骨近端骨折的总体发生率(0/ 119,0%)低于未保护股骨近端固定后(6/ 126,4.8%),p = 0.030。没有固定保护股骨近端,股骨近端骨折的累计发生率在股骨干骨折后10个月内攀升至6.9%,显著高于固定保护股骨近端持续0%的发生率,log-rank p = 0.015。股骨近端骨折与年龄、性别、共病负担或AO/OTA分型无关(p < 0.05)。结论:如果没有固定保护股骨近端,大约1 / 15的股骨骨干骨折患者在固定其股骨骨干骨折后10个月内发生股骨近端骨折。保护股骨近端可减少股骨近端植入体周围骨折的累积发生率,在可能的情况下应予以考虑。证据水平:III。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书