Detailed Information

Cited 1 time in webofscience Cited 1 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

What Is the Best Treatment Choice for Concomitant Ipsilateral Femoral Neck and Intertrochanteric Fracture? A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of 115 Consecutive Patientsopen access

Authors
Kim, Han SoulLee, Dong KeunMun, Ki UkMoon, Dou HyunKim, Chul-Ho
Issue Date
Nov-2022
Publisher
MDPI
Keywords
femoral neck fracture; intertrochanteric fracture; cephalomedullary nail; dynamic hip screw; arthroplasty
Citation
JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, v.12, no.11
Journal Title
JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
Volume
12
Number
11
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/gachon/handle/2020.sw.gachon/86656
DOI
10.3390/jpm12111908
ISSN
2075-4426
Abstract
Purpose: Although a concomitant ipsilateral femoral neck and intertrochanteric fracture has been considered to be a rare type of injury, its incidence has been increasing, especially among elderly hip fracture patients. However, there is limited evidence on the optimal treatment option. This study surveys surgical outcomes of different implants in order to assist in selecting the best possible implant for a combined femoral neck and intertrochanteric fracture. Methods: The postoperative complications after the treatment of a concomitant ipsilateral femoral neck and intertrochanteric fracture via cephalomedullary nail (CMN), dynamic hip screw (DHS), and hip arthroplasty groups were analyzed by retrospectively reviewing the electronic medical records of 115 consecutive patients. Results: The patient demographics and perioperative details showed no significant discrepancies amongst different surgical groups, except for the operative time; a CMN had the shortest mean operative time (standard deviation) of 85.6 min (31.1), followed by 94.7 min (22.3) during a DHS, and 107.3 min (37.2) during an HR (p = 0.021). Of the 84 osteosynthesis patients, 77 (91.7%) achieved a fracture union. Only one (3.2%) of the 31 HR cases had a dislocation. The sub-analysis of the different osteosynthesis methods showed a higher incidence of excessive sliding and the nonunion of the fracture fragment in the DHS group than that in the CMN group (p = 0.004 and p = 0.022, respectively). The different surgical methods did not significantly vary in other outcome variables, such as the re-operation rate, mortality, and hip function. Conclusions: For the surgical treatment of combined femoral neck and trochanteric fractures, osteosynthesis did not differ significantly from an HR in terms of the overall postoperative complications, reoperation and mortality rate, and hip function, however, the risk of nonunion and more mechanical complications should be considered when choosing a DHS. Our suggestion for the treatment of a femoral neck and ipsilateral trochanteric fracture is that a surgeon should choose wisely between an HR and a CMN depending on the patient's age, the displacement of the femoral neck, and one's expertise.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
ETC > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE