Olansen Jon, Ibrahim Zainab, Aaron Roy K
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Orthop Res Rev. 2024 Jan 3;16:1-20. doi: 10.2147/ORR.S340535. eCollection 2024.
This review compares internal fixation versus arthroplasty in the treatment of nondisplaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) calling attention to evolving areas of consensus that influence clinical decision-making. The Garden classification system, typically dichotomized into nondisplaced (types I and II) and displaced (types III and IV) fractures, has been used as a guide for surgical decision-making. Conventionally, treatment of nondisplaced FNF in the elderly has been with internal fixation, and treatment of a displaced FNF has been hemi-, or more recently total hip, arthroplasty. Studies over the last decade have raised concern over the appropriate treatment of nondisplaced FNFs due to high rates of reoperation of nondisplaced FNFs treated with internal fixation. Avascular necrosis (AVN), failure of internal fixation, secondary malunion, and pin/nail penetration through the femoral head have all been observed. Several studies have attributed fixation failure to a degree of femoral neck tilt ≥20°, either posteriorly or anteriorly as seen on the lateral X-ray. Because of these observations of fixation failures, the suggestion has been made that arthroplasty be used when the degree of posterior tilt exceeds a threshold of ≥20° tilt with the expectation of diminishing failure of fixation, decreasing the risk of reoperation and preserving function without increasing mortality rate. Frustrating additional analyses are uncertainties over the mechanisms of failure of internal fixation with ≥20° tilt and the persistently substantial 1-year mortality rate after FNF, which has not been influenced by fixation or replacement type. Due to the lack of consensus regarding the determination of the appropriate surgical intervention for nondisplaced FNFs, an improved algorithm for surgical decision-making for these fractures may prove useful.
本综述比较了内固定与关节成形术治疗无移位股骨颈骨折(FNFs)的效果,并提请注意影响临床决策的不断发展的共识领域。Garden分类系统通常分为无移位(I型和II型)和移位(III型和IV型)骨折,一直被用作手术决策的指南。传统上,老年无移位FNF的治疗方法是内固定,而移位FNF的治疗方法是半髋关节置换术,或最近采用全髋关节置换术。过去十年的研究对无移位FNF的适当治疗方法提出了担忧,因为采用内固定治疗的无移位FNF再次手术率很高。已观察到股骨头缺血性坏死(AVN)、内固定失败、继发性畸形愈合以及钢针/钉子穿透股骨头等情况。几项研究将固定失败归因于股骨颈在侧位X线片上显示的向后或向前倾斜≥20°。由于观察到这些固定失败情况,有人建议当后倾程度超过≥20°的阈值时采用关节成形术,以期减少固定失败、降低再次手术风险并保留功能而不增加死亡率。令人沮丧的是,进一步分析发现,对于倾斜≥20°的内固定失败机制以及FNF后持续较高的1年死亡率仍存在不确定性,而这并未受到固定或置换类型的影响。由于对于无移位FNF的适当手术干预的确定缺乏共识,一种改进的这些骨折的手术决策算法可能会很有用。