Mohan Kunal, Ellanti Prasad, French Helen, Hogan Niall, McCarthy Tom
Department of Trauma and Orthopedics, Saint James's Hospital, Dublin.
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2019 Jun 20;11(2):7963. doi: 10.4081/or.2019.7963. eCollection 2019 May 23.
Concomitant ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures are uncommon, occurring in 1-9% of femoral shaft fractures. While this injury typically occurs in young patients following high-energy trauma, little consensus has been established regarding the optimal fixation approach. A multitude of treatment strategies exist, with limited evidence as to which is more favorable. The aim of this study was to appraise current evidence, comparing management with either one single or separate devices for both fractures. A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies published between 1992 and 2018 comparing the rate of postoperative nonunion, malunion, delayed union, avascular necrosis, infection or reoperation between at least one method of single device fixation and one method of separate device fixation were included. Six non-randomized cohort studies assessing 173 patients were suitable for inclusion, each comparing single device cephalomedullary nail fixation of both fractures with a combination of devices. All patients presented following high-energy trauma, at a median age of 32 years. While low complication rate and favorable outcomes were found across both groups, no significant difference could be inferred between either treatment strategy. This injury continues to occur in the traditionally described patient group, and results in acceptable postoperative outcomes. A paucity of randomized studies limits the ability to recommend a single or separate device treatment approach, and as such prospective, randomized trials with adequately powered sample sizes are required to definitively compare surgical management strategies in this rare but complex injury.
同侧股骨颈和股骨干同时骨折并不常见,占股骨干骨折的1%-9%。虽然这种损伤通常发生在高能创伤后的年轻患者中,但关于最佳固定方法尚未达成共识。存在多种治疗策略,关于哪种更有利的证据有限。本研究的目的是评估当前证据,比较使用单一或分开的器械治疗这两种骨折的情况。根据系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行了系统评价。纳入了1992年至2018年间发表的研究,这些研究比较了至少一种单一器械固定方法和一种分开器械固定方法之间的术后骨不连、畸形愈合、延迟愈合、缺血性坏死、感染或再次手术的发生率。六项评估173例患者的非随机队列研究适合纳入,每项研究都将两种骨折的单一器械髓内钉固定与联合器械固定进行了比较。所有患者均因高能创伤就诊,中位年龄为32岁。虽然两组的并发症发生率都很低且预后良好,但两种治疗策略之间没有显著差异。这种损伤仍发生在传统描述的患者群体中,术后结果可以接受。缺乏随机研究限制了推荐单一或分开器械治疗方法的能力,因此需要进行样本量充足的前瞻性随机试验,以明确比较这种罕见但复杂损伤的手术治疗策略。