ArticleScientific reports2025
FNS as a more satisfactory surgical option for young and middle-aged patients with femoral neck fractures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment for femoral neck fractures in middle-aged and young adults. This research seeks to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of three different approaches: three cannulated screws (CS), a dynamic hip system combined with cannulated screws (DHS), and a new femoral neck system (FNS) in the management of these fractures. Seventy-eight middle-aged and young patients admitted for femoral neck fractures were divided into three groups based on the surgical procedure: CS, DHS, and FNS groups. The surgical time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, number of fluoroscopies, Harris Hip Score and postoperative complications among the groups were compared. All patients were followed for 16 to 24 months, with an average follow-up duration of 18.42 ± 2.25 months. The operation times, intraoperative blood losses, the median and interquartile range for incision length, all showing significant differences. The median number of intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopies was 28 (8) for the CS group, 16 (6) for the DHS group, and 11 (7) for the FNS group, with significant differences between the CS group and both the DHS and FNS groups. The complication rates showed significant differences between the CS group and the other two groups. At the 3- and 6-month follow-ups, there were no statistically significant differences in Harris Hip scores among the three groups. However, at the final follow-up, the scores were 80.39 ± 6.81 (CS), 87.13 ± 3.43 (DHS), and 87.95 ± 3.58 (FNS), with the CS group showing significantly lower scores compared to the DHS and FNS groups, indicating a better overall outcome for the latter two. Treating young and middle-aged patients with femoral neck fractures using CCS, DHS, or FNS resulted in satisfactory clinical outcomes. In comparison to CCS, DHS and FNS reduced intraoperative fluoroscopy use, shortened surgery times, and minimized complications such as femoral neck shortening, nonunion, and femoral head necrosis. Furthermore, the FNS group had a smaller incision length and a shorter operation time than the DHS 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.