This study aimed to analyze the relationship between fracture type by determining data on the geometry of the proximal femur in the pre-fracture period in patients over 65 years of age who had hip fractures as a result of low-energy trauma. A total of 127 patients who were admitted to the hospital for reasons other than hip pathology within 1 year before the occurrence of hip fracture and who had an anterior-posterior pelvic X-ray were included in the study. Measurements were made to evaluate the proximal femur geometry, neck shaft angle, central edge angle, femoral head diameter, femoral neck diameter, femoral neck length, femoral offset length, femoral neck axial length, hip axis length, and femoral shaft diameter. As a result of these measurements, analyses were performed to determine the relationship between the control group and fracture types. The mean Neck shaft angle scores were significantly higher in both fracture types than in the control group ( P = .034, P = .002). The mean Femoral offset length values of both fracture types were lower than those of the control group ( P = .002, P = .011, respectively). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk of collum femoris fracture increased as the Femoral head diameter value increased. (OD = 0.21, P = .002). The geometric parameters of the proximal femur play an important role in the formation of hip fracture types. Therefore, differences in proximal femur geometry in hip fracture types should be considered, and patient-focused choices should be made regarding the surgical procedures and implants to be used during fracture fixation.

Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes and complications of two different surgical approaches, the anterolateral and posterior approaches, for treating humeral shaft fractures.Materials and methods: Between January 2015 and May 2021, 51 patients with humeral shaft fractures were treated with anterolateral and posterior approaches. Twenty-nine patients were operated with the posterior approach (group 1) and 22 with the anterolateral approach (group 2). Statistical analyses were performed between the two groups regarding age, gender distribution, fractured side, body mass index (BMI), type of trauma, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification, and follow-up time. Complications such as operative time, amount of bleeding, incision length and implant fracture, radial nerve palsy, wound infection, and nonunion were compared between the two groups. Functional results of the elbow joint were evaluated with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score.Results: The mean follow-up period was 49.10±21.15 months (12-75 months) in group 1 and 50.00±23.71 months (range: 15-70 months) in group 2. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of age, gender distribution, fractured side, BMI, trauma type, AO/OTA classification, and follow-up time (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and incision length (p>0.05). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 77.24±20.03 (range: 70-100 points) in group 1 and 81.36±8.34 (range: 70-100 points) in group 2, and no significant difference was found (p>0.05). When evaluated in terms of complications, there was no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). While there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding elbow joint range of motion, the limitation was observed in more patients in group 1.Conclusion: Similar satisfactory treatment results were obtained in patients who underwent anterolateral and posterior approaches in treating humeral shaft fractures. Furthermore, no difference was found between the two approaches regarding complication rates.

Background: The timing of surgery for femoral neck fractures in young adults remains controversial. Nonetheless, the debate continues about whether orthopedic trauma cases should be operated daytime or after hours. Aim: This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of surgery on femoral neck fractures during daytime versus after-hours. Patients and Methods: A total of 124 patients aged 18–60 years who were operated for femoral neck fractures between 2015 and 2020 were included in the study. The patients were separated into two groups. Seventy-two patients operated between 08:00 and 17:00 hours were defined as the daytime group and 52 patients operated between 17:01 and 07:59 hours were defined as the after-hours group. Demographic data, reduction quality, duration of operation, intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complications, revision rates, and postoperative Harris hip score results of the two groups were recorded for analysis. Results: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, smoking, fracture type and follow-up time, reduction quality, postoperative complication rates, revision rates, and Harris hip score results. Waiting times until surgery, operation duration, and intraoperative EBL amounts were, in the daytime group, significantly higher than in the after-hours group. Conclusion: In this study comparing femoral neck fractures operated on daytime and after-hours in adults, the waiting time until surgery was found to be higher in the daytime group. Operation duration and EBL were higher in the after-hours group.