ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Revision rate of displaced femoral neck fractures in non-elderly adults: a retrospective comparative study of the femoral neck system and cannulated screws.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does double fluoroscopy reduce operative and radiation time in femoral neck fracture fixation?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Trial
- Expert Consensus on Vascular Assessment and Treatment Strategies for Adult Femoral Neck Fractures.Annals of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of different anti-shortening screws in preventing postoperative shortening in displaced femoral neck fractures: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisplaced femoral neck fractures are associated with a high revision rate. The new femoral neck system(FNS) offers advantages in fixation stability, potentially reducing the need for revision. The purpose of this study was to compare the revision rate of patients with different reduction quality treated with the FNS and cannulated screws (CS).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with Garden III or IV femoral neck fractures who underwent osteosynthesis in a level 1 trauma center between July 2019 and June 2023. A total of 141 cases met the inclusion criteria and received treatment with either the FNS (N = 65) or CS (N = 76). The quality of fracture reduction, surgical complications (such as femoral neck shortening, avascular necrosis of femoral head, nonunion of fracture, implant failure and withdrawal), revision surgery and the reasons for revision were analyzed.
resultsThe mean age of the 141 cases was 52.0 years (range 18-65); with sixty-five cases being male (46.1%). Eighty-four fractures (59.6%) were classified as Garden type III. Reduction quality was good in 71 cases (50.4%) and fair in 70 cases. The mean follow-up period was 25.9 months (range 12-46). A total of 26 cases(18.4%) underwent revision surgery. The revision rate in cases with good reduction was 11.3% (8/71 cases), with seven cases (four hardware removal and three arthroplasty) in the CS group and one case (arthroplasty for fracture nonunion and implant failure) in the FNS group, a significant difference was found between the two groups(P = 0.041). Among the 18 cases (25.7%, 18/70) with fair reduction who underwent revision surgery, nine cases (six hardware removal and three arthroplasty) in the CS group, and nine cases (arthroplasty for implant failure and cut-out) in the FNS group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.672). The total revision rate between the FNS group (15.4%, 10/65) and the CS group (21.1%, 16/76) was not significantly different (P = 0.387).
conclusionsThe total revision rate between the FNS and CS group showed no difference. However, in cases with good reduction, the revision rate was lower in the FNS group compared to the CS group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.