4.5 Review

Treatment of Valgus-Impacted and Nondisplaced Femoral Neck Fragility Fractures in the Elderly

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00866

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With increasing life expectancy, there will be a rise in hip fractures in the elderly population, necessitating critical analysis of treatment options. Surgical intervention is necessary for femoral neck fractures, with nonoperative treatment being unsuitable. Individualized decisions regarding surgical options should be made based on patient-specific factors.
As the life expectancy of the worldwide population increases, the number of hip fractures in the elderly cohort is expected to grow. It is important for surgeons to critically analyze available treatment options for these injuries, with the goal of optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications. Femoral neck fractures make up approximately half of all hip fractures. Nonoperative treatment of valgus-impacted and nondisplaced (Garden I and II) femoral neck fractures has high rates of secondary displacement, osteonecrosis, and nonunion; only patients with notable risk for perioperative complications are treated nonoperatively. Surgical intervention is the standard of care, with options including internal fixation (IF) with multiple cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw, hemiarthroplasty, or total hip arthroplasty. Patients with a posterior tilt of greater than 20 degrees have a high rate of revision surgery when treated with IF and may benefit from primary arthroplasty. Furthermore, primary arthroplasty has demonstrated lower revision surgery rates and equivalent postoperative mortality when compared with IF. Surgeons should be aware of the functional outcomes, complications, revision surgery rates, and mortality rates associated with each treatment modality to make a patient-specific decision regarding their care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available