4.5 Review

Cannulated screws versus dynamic hip screw versus hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty in patients with displaced and non-displaced femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of 5703 patients

Journal

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04114-8

Keywords

Cannulated screw; Dynamic hip screw; Hemiarthroplasty; Total hip arthroplasty; Hip replacement; Femoral neck fracture; Hip fracture; Network meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared cannulated screw fixation, dynamic hip screw fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty in patients with displaced or non-displaced femoral neck fracture, evaluating surgical and functional outcomes, reoperation rates, and postoperative complications. The results showed that total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty were superior to cannulated screw fixation and dynamic hip screw fixation in terms of life quality and functional outcomes. Thus, hip arthroplasty should be preferred over internal fixation for femoral neck fractures, with internal fixation considered only in individual cases.
Background Our aim was to determine the best operative procedure in human participants with a displaced or non-displaced femoral neck fracture comparing cannulated screw (CS) fixation, dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation, hemiarthroplasty (HA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of surgical and functional outcomes, reoperation and postoperative complications.Methods We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Clinical trials, CINAHL, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs up to 31 July 2022. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed to assess the comparative effects of the four operative procedures, using fixed-effects and random-effects models. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were estimated for binary variables.Results A total of 33 RCTs with 5703 patients were included in our network meta-analysis. CS fixation was best in terms of operation time (CS: MD = - 57.70, 95% CI - 72.78; - 42.62; DHS: MD = - 53.56, 95% CI - 76.17; - 30.95; HA: MD = - 20.90, 95% CI - 30.65; - 11.15; THA: MD = 1.00 reference) and intraoperative blood loss (CS: MD = - 3.67, 95% CI - 4.44; - 2.90; DHS: MD = - 3.20, 95% CI - 4.97; - 1.43; HA: MD = - 1.20, 95% CI - 1.73; - 0.67; THA: MD = 1.00 reference). In life quality and functional outcome, measured at different time points with EQ-5D and the Harris Hip Score (HHS), THA ranked first and HA second (e.g. EQ-5D 2 years postoperatively: CS: MD = - 0.20, 95% CI - 0.29; - 0.11; HA: MD = - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.17; - 0.02; THA: MD = 1.00 reference; HHS 2 years postoperatively: CS: MD = - 5.50, 95% CI - 9.98; - 1.03; DHS: MD = - 8.93, 95% CI - 15.08; - 2.78; HA: MD = - 3.65, 95% CI - 6.74; - 0.57; THA: MD = 1.00 reference). CS fixation had the highest reoperation risk, followed by DHS fixation, HA, and THA (CS: OR = 9.98, 95% CI 4.60; 21.63; DHS: OR = 5.07, 95% CI 2.15; 11.96; HA: OR = 1.60, 95% CI 0.89; 2.89; THA: OR = 1.00 reference).Conclusion In our cohort of patients with displaced and non-displaced femoral neck fractures, HHS, EQ-5D, and reoperation risk showed an advantage of THA and HA compared with CS and DHS fixation. Based on these findings, we recommend that hip arthroplasty should be preferred and internal fixation of femoral neck fractures should only be considered in individual cases. Level of evidence I: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Conclusion In our cohort of patients with displaced and non-displaced femoral neck fractures, HHS, EQ-5D, and reoperation risk showed an advantage of THA and HA compared with CS and DHS fixation. Based on these findings, we recommend that hip arthroplasty should be preferred and internal fixation of femoral neck fractures should only be considered in individual cases. Level of evidence I: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

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