Internal fixation of femoral neck fractures

Sorensen, Joan S; Varmarken, Jens-Erik; Bømler, J

doi:10.3109/17453679209154784

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The full text of sixteen studies was available, and the basic characteristics of included studies were shown in Table 1 . There was a moderate risk bias for the RCTs: four studies mentioned random sequence regeneration [ 17 , 18 , 23 , 27 ], six studies mentioned allocation concealment [ 17 , 18 , 23 – 26 ], two studies used the blinding of participants [ 17 , 18 ], one study used observed blinding [ 17 ], eight studies reported complete outcome [ 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 ], and nine studies reported all outcome date without reporting bias [ 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 – 27 ]. For retrospective cohort studies, three studies had 9 scores [ 9 , 10 , 28 ], two studies had 8 scores [ 15 , 19 ], and two studies had 7 scores [ 16 , 22 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mortality at the last follow-up was reported in six studies [ 9 , 10 , 17 , 23 , 26 , 27 ] including 1842 hips (947 for DHS and 895 for CS). The follow-up period of included studies varied from 12 to 36 months.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven studies [ 9 , 10 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 21 – 23 , 26 – 28 ] included AVN rate. The follow-up period of included studies varied from 4 to 66 months.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our findings were basically consistent with current trends. For mortality, previous studies have reported that the mortality rate of DHS/CS ranged from 0 to 40% [ 26 , 27 ], and no significant difference between those two treatment. We considered that the reason for the larger range may be due to the difference in sample size and follow-up time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dynamic hip screws versus cannulated screws for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhao

Yang

et al. 2020

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Dynamic hip screw (DHS) and cannulated screws (CS) are widely used for femoral neck fractures. However, there is no definite result as to which surgical method bring less complications. We performed this study to compare the complication (mortality, non-union, avascular necrosis (AVN), and revision) of DHS and CS for the treatment of femoral neck fractures patients. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other relevant studies related the comparison of DHS versus CS for femoral neck fractures from inception to Jan 7, 2020. The quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS), respectively. The meta-analysis was performed by the RevMan 5.2 software. Results: Nine RCTs and seven retrospective cohort studies were included for meta-analysis. CS was found to be superior to DHS with respect to AVN rate (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.08-1.99; p = 0.01, I 2 = 0%). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality, non-union, and revision (p > 0.05). Conclusion: DHS and CS have similar complication including mortality, revision rate, and non-union, but CS has superior to DHS on ANV. However, further studies are required to provide more robust evidence owing to some limitations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven studies [ 9 , 10 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 21 – 23 , 26 – 28 ] included AVN rate. The follow-up period of included studies varied from 4 to 66 months.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dynamic hip screws versus cannulated screws for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhao

Yang

et al. 2020

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elmerson et al (1995) compared hook pins with sliding screw-plate in a randomized study of 222 patients, and they found that the failure rate after 2 years was 38% with hook pins and 46% with screw-plate, which was a not statistically significant difference. Sørensen et al (1992) randomized between sliding screw-plate and Gouffon screws. The study involved only 73 patients, but even so it clearly favored the use of a screw plate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%