The present work introduces a method of screw fixation of femoral neck fractures in the presence of osteoporosis, according to an original concept of the establishment of two supporting points for the implants and their biplane positioning in the femoral neck and head. The provision of two steady supporting points for the implants and the highly increased (obtuse) angle at which they are positioned allow the body weight to be transferred successfully from the head fragment onto the diaphysis, thanks to the strength of the screws, with the patient’s bone quality being of least importance. The position of the screws allows them to slide under stress with a minimal risk of displacement. The method was developed in search of a solution for those patients for whom primary arthroplasty is contraindicated. The method has been analysed in relation to biomechanics and statics. For the first time, a new function is applied to a screw fixation—the implant is presented as a simple beam with an overhanging end.

No abstract

IntroductionOsteosynthesis of femoral neck fractures is related up to 46% rate of complications. The novel method of biplane double-supported screw fixation (BDSF; Filipov’s method) offers better stability using three medially diverging cannulated screws with two of them buttressed on the calcar. Biomechanically, the most effective component is the distal screw placed at steeper angle and supported on a large area along the distal and posterior cortex of the femoral neck following its spiral anterior curve. Thereby, BDSF achieves the strongest possible distal-posterior cortical support for the fixation construct, which allows for immediate full weight-bearing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes from the first 5-year period of BDSF clinical application.Materials and methodsSubject of this retrospective study were 207 patients with displaced Garden III–IV femoral neck fractures treated with BDSF. Three 7.3-mm cannulated screws were laid in two medially diverging oblique planes. The distal and the middle screws were supported on the calcar. The distal screw had additional support on the posterior neck cortex.ResultsThe outcomes in 207 patients were analysed in 29.6 ± 16.8 months follow-up. Bone union occurred in 96.6% of the cases (males 97.6%, females 96.4%, P = 0.99). Rate of nonunion was 3.4%, including fixation failure (2.4%), pseudoarthrosis (0.5%) and nonunion with AVN (0.5%). Rate of AVN was 12.1% (males 4.8%, females 13.9%, P = 0.12). Modified Harris hip score was 86.2 ± 18.9 (range 10–100), with no significant difference between genders, P = 0.07. Older patients were admitted with significantly more comorbidities (P = 0.001), and on follow-up they were significantly less mobile (P = 0.005) and had significantly more difficulties to put socks and shoes on (P < 0.001).ConclusionsBy providing additional cortical support, the novel BDSF method enhances femoral neck fracture fixation strength.

Femoral neck fracture stability can be substantially increased applying BDSF due to better cortical screw support and screw orientation. Having two calcar-buttressed screws oriented in different inclinations, BDSF can enhance constant stability during various patient activities. The more unstable the situation, the better BDSF stability is in comparison to CFIX.

Osteosynthesis of femoral neck fractures is still associated with high complication rates. The novel method of biplane double-supported screw fixation offers better osteosynthesis stability by buttressing two of three medially diverging cannulated screws on the inferior neck cortex. Biomechanically, the most effective component of this fixation is the third, inferior obtuse screw, supported along considerable distance on both the inferior and posterior cortices of the femoral neck following its spiral anterior curve. Thus, biplane double-supported screw fixation achieves greater inferoposterior cortical support of the implants, allowing immediate full weight bearing for patients older than 55 years. Although the method has been recently communicated, some important surgical aspects still remain to be discussed. This report aims at describing a detailed and modified surgical technique and providing criteria and recommendations for its successful application according to the clinical experience over more than 9 years. Level of Evidence: Level V, expert evidence