Background:The incidence of fractures in the trochanteric area has risen with the increasing numbers of elderly people with osteoporosis. Although dynamic hip screw fixation is the gold standard for the treatment of stable intertrochanteric femur fractures, treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures still remains controversial. Intramedullary devices such as Gamma nail or proximal femoral nail and proximal anatomic femur plates are in use for the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. There are still many investigations to find the optimal implant to treat these fractures with minimum complications. For this reason, we aimed to perform a biomechanical comparison of the proximal femoral nail and the locking proximal anatomic femoral plate in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures.Materials and Methods:Twenty synthetic, third generation human femur models, obtained for this purpose, were divided into two groups of 10 bones each. Femurs were provided as a standard representation of AO/Orthopedic Trauma Associationtype 31-A2 unstable fractures. Two types of implantations were inserted: the proximal femoral intramedullary nail in the first group and the locking anatomic femoral plate in the second group. Axial load was applied to the fracture models through the femoral head using a material testing machine, and the biomechanical properties of the implant types were compared.Result:Nail and plate models were locked distally at the same level. Axial steady load with a 5 mm/m velocity was applied through the mechanical axis of femur bone models. Axial loading in the proximal femoral intramedullary nail group was 1.78-fold greater compared to the plate group. All bones that had the plate applied were fractured in the portion containing the distal locking screw.Conclusion:The proximal femoral intramedullary nail provides more stability and allows for earlier weight bearing than the locking plate when used for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Clinicians should be cautious for early weight bearing with locking plate for unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures.

Background: The choice of prosthesis in hemiarthroplasty is controversial for geriatric patients after femoral neck fracture. We hypothesised that selection criteria for unipolar or bipolar prostheses could be constructed based on factors affecting mortality. Aims:The aims of this retrospective study were: (1) to determine the factors affecting mortality of femoral neck fracture patients ≥65 years of age; (2) to compare patient mortality rates, radiological findings, and functional outcomes according to prosthesis type (unipolar or bipolar); and (3) to evaluate the persistence of inner bearing mobility of bipolar prostheses.Study Design: Retrospective comparative study. Methods:In total, 144 patients operated for hemiarthroplasty and aged ≥65 were included. We classified the patients into either unipolar or bipolar prosthesis groups. To reveal factors that affected mortality, age, sex, delay in surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were obtained from folders. Barthel Daily Living, Harris hip, and acetabular erosion scores were calculated and bipolar head movement was analysed for live patients.Results: One-year mortality was 31.94%. Age ≥75 (p=0.029), male sex (p=0.048), and delay in surgery ≥6 (p=0.004) were the patient characteristics that were related to increased mortality. There were no significant differences in sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, delay in surgery, mortality, or Barthel, Harris, acetabulum scores between the two groups. Twenty patients from each group were admitted for last follow-up. Bipolar head movement was preserved for 33.3% of patients. They were inactive patients with low Barthel and Harris scores. Conclusion:Although bipolar head movement was preserved in inactive patients, we suppose that this conferred no advantage to these patients, who could hardly walk. In this study, male patients, those aged ≥75 years, and those operated at ≥6 days had an increased risk of mortality. Also, although not significant in multivariate analysis, high American Society of Anesthesiologists score (≥3) was related to increased mortality. Considering that one of three patients died during the first postoperative year, we think that these patients should be operated as soon as possible, and expensive bipolar prostheses must be used selectively in regard to patient characteristics.

No abstract

Femoral neck fractures in young patients are mostly seen after high-energy trauma. Internal fixation methods are the gold treatment choice in young, healthy, and active patients with good bone quality. [1] Potential complications after trauma and surgery make the treatment of these fractures more challenging. Various surgical methods and fixation options have been proposed for the surgical treatment of femoral neck fractures. [2] Anatomic reduction is the most important factor in internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. The time to surgery (from trauma to operating theatre), capsulotomy, and the implant choices are controversial in the literature. [3] Many types of implants are used for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. [3] Osteosynthesis with cannulated screws (CSs) and dynamic hip screws (DHSs) are the most commonly used modalities. [4] Although internal fixation of femoral neck fractures provides blood flow to the femoral neck, complications such as non-union and avascular necrosis (AVN) are still seen in 10-20% and 10-30% of cases, respectively. [5,6] In addition, joint replacement is performed in 20-36% of these Objectives: This study aims to compare the results of internal fixation with dynamic hip screw (DHS)/antirotation screw and conventional cannulated screw (CS) for femoral neck fracture. Patients and methods: This retrospective study included a total of 78 patients (57 males, 21 females) with collum femoris fractures treated with internal fixation between January 2015 and January 2019. Group 1 comprised 41 patients with a mean age of 45.7 years (range, 19 to 62 years) treated with DHSs/antirotation screws, while group 2 comprised 37 patients with a mean age of 41.9 years (range, 17 to 75 years) treated with CSs. The patients were evaluated for union, avascular necrosis (AVN), femoral neck shortness, operation time, duration of fluoroscopy exposure, and functional outcomes. Results: Age, gender, and Garden classification stages were similar in both groups. No significant difference was found between the groups in respect of AVN and non-union rates. The non-union rate was 12.2% in group 1 and 21.6% in group 2 (p>0.05). The duration of fluoroscopy exposure was statistically significantly higher in group 2 (p=0.001) and the operation time was statistically significantly longer in group 1 (p=0.001). In group 2, femoral neck shortness stature was significantly higher (p=0.007). At the final follow-up examination, the Harris hip score was statistically significantly higher in group 1 (p=0.04). Conclusion: Dynamic hip screw/antirotation screw was a more relevant treatment method for transcervical femoral neck fractures compared to CS with more favorable functional outcomes and less fluoroscopy exposure.