复位内固定与原位内固定治疗外翻型股骨颈骨折的疗效:一项系统综述。

Jun-Young Heu, Ju-Yeong Kim, Se-Won Lee
{"title":"复位内固定与原位内固定治疗外翻型股骨颈骨折的疗效:一项系统综述。","authors":"Jun-Young Heu, Ju-Yeong Kim, Se-Won Lee","doi":"10.5371/hp.2025.37.3.178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Due to the presumed inherent stability of valgus-impacted femoral neck fractures (VIFNF), <i>in-situ</i> fixation has traditionally been the preferred surgical treatment. However, regarding the particular need for reduction before fixation, the optimal surgical strategy for this type of injury remains controversial. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing outcomes between <i>in-situ</i> fixation and reduction with fixation for VIFNF published between 2014 and 2024 were included. Utilizing the Modified Coleman Methodology Score, study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Eleven studies published during the selected timeframe met the inclusion criteria. Studies on <i>in-situ</i> fixation reported significant femoral neck (FN) shortening regardless of screw configuration. Two of three comparative studies between <i>in-situ</i> and reduction demonstrated significantly less FN shortening in the <i>in-situ</i> group at the postoperative one year follow-up. Furthermore, all three comparative studies reported significantly higher postoperative 1-year Harris hip scores in the reduction group. For VIFNF, anatomical reduction prior to fixation may improve functional outcomes and reduce FN shortening compared to <i>in-situ</i> fixation. However, reduction techniques may offer better long-term stability and lower complication rates although they require additional surgical steps. Nevertheless, patient selection remains crucial, particularly in elderly or osteoporotic patients where <i>in-situ</i> fixation may still be a viable option. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73239,"journal":{"name":"Hip & pelvis","volume":"37 3","pages":"178-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12417868/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of Reduction and Fixation versus <i>In-situ</i> Fixation for Valgus-impacted Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jun-Young Heu, Ju-Yeong Kim, Se-Won Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.5371/hp.2025.37.3.178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Due to the presumed inherent stability of valgus-impacted femoral neck fractures (VIFNF), <i>in-situ</i> fixation has traditionally been the preferred surgical treatment. However, regarding the particular need for reduction before fixation, the optimal surgical strategy for this type of injury remains controversial. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing outcomes between <i>in-situ</i> fixation and reduction with fixation for VIFNF published between 2014 and 2024 were included. Utilizing the Modified Coleman Methodology Score, study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Eleven studies published during the selected timeframe met the inclusion criteria. Studies on <i>in-situ</i> fixation reported significant femoral neck (FN) shortening regardless of screw configuration. Two of three comparative studies between <i>in-situ</i> and reduction demonstrated significantly less FN shortening in the <i>in-situ</i> group at the postoperative one year follow-up. Furthermore, all three comparative studies reported significantly higher postoperative 1-year Harris hip scores in the reduction group. For VIFNF, anatomical reduction prior to fixation may improve functional outcomes and reduce FN shortening compared to <i>in-situ</i> fixation. However, reduction techniques may offer better long-term stability and lower complication rates although they require additional surgical steps. Nevertheless, patient selection remains crucial, particularly in elderly or osteoporotic patients where <i>in-situ</i> fixation may still be a viable option. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hip & pelvis\",\"volume\":\"37 3\",\"pages\":\"178-186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12417868/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hip & pelvis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2025.37.3.178\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hip & pelvis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2025.37.3.178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于外翻冲击型股骨颈骨折(VIFNF)固有的稳定性,原位固定传统上是首选的手术治疗方法。然而,关于固定前复位的特殊需要,这类损伤的最佳手术策略仍然存在争议。使用PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行全面的文献检索。2014年至2024年间发表的比较原位固定和复位固定治疗VIFNF结果的研究纳入其中。采用改良Coleman方法评分,研究质量由两名独立评论者评估。在所选时间范围内发表的11项研究符合纳入标准。原位固定的研究报告了显著股骨颈(FN)缩短与螺钉配置无关。三项原位组和复位组的比较研究中有两项显示,原位组在术后一年随访中FN缩短明显减少。此外,所有三项比较研究都报告了复位组术后1年Harris髋关节评分明显较高。对于VIFNF,与原位固定相比,在固定前进行解剖复位可以改善功能结果并减少FN缩短。然而,复位技术可以提供更好的长期稳定性和更低的并发症发生率,尽管它们需要额外的手术步骤。然而,患者的选择仍然至关重要,特别是在老年人或骨质疏松患者中,原位固定可能仍然是可行的选择。需要进一步的前瞻性随机对照试验来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Outcomes of Reduction and Fixation versus <i>In-situ</i> Fixation for Valgus-impacted Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Outcomes of Reduction and Fixation versus <i>In-situ</i> Fixation for Valgus-impacted Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Outcomes of Reduction and Fixation versus In-situ Fixation for Valgus-impacted Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Due to the presumed inherent stability of valgus-impacted femoral neck fractures (VIFNF), in-situ fixation has traditionally been the preferred surgical treatment. However, regarding the particular need for reduction before fixation, the optimal surgical strategy for this type of injury remains controversial. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing outcomes between in-situ fixation and reduction with fixation for VIFNF published between 2014 and 2024 were included. Utilizing the Modified Coleman Methodology Score, study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Eleven studies published during the selected timeframe met the inclusion criteria. Studies on in-situ fixation reported significant femoral neck (FN) shortening regardless of screw configuration. Two of three comparative studies between in-situ and reduction demonstrated significantly less FN shortening in the in-situ group at the postoperative one year follow-up. Furthermore, all three comparative studies reported significantly higher postoperative 1-year Harris hip scores in the reduction group. For VIFNF, anatomical reduction prior to fixation may improve functional outcomes and reduce FN shortening compared to in-situ fixation. However, reduction techniques may offer better long-term stability and lower complication rates although they require additional surgical steps. Nevertheless, patient selection remains crucial, particularly in elderly or osteoporotic patients where in-situ fixation may still be a viable option. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
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