Analysis of risk factors for modification of femoral offset after internal fixation of Garden I and II femoral neck fractures

Abstract

BackgroundThe concept of restoring the femoral offset is well established during hip replacement surgery, but is less well known when treating Garden I or II femoral neck fractures by internal fixation. And yet, the therapeutic aim for these fractures is to restore this native parameter as best possible. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for reduction of femoral offset after union of a Garden I or II femoral neck fracture treated by internal fixation. HypothesisAfter internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture, certain factors may contribute to reducing the femoral offset, which itself has been identified as being responsible for altering the patients’ quality of life and functional outcomes. Materials and methodsThis multicenter study included 193 patients who had a Garden I or II femoral neck fracture treated by cannulated screws or a sliding compression screw-plate. The difference between the femoral offset in the operated hip and that of the contralateral hip was measured in weightbearing patients after the fracture had healed. This difference was the primary outcome measure. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to look for risk factors contributing to femoral neck shortening. ResultsBased on the univariate analysis, being more than 85 years of age, having a Garden I fracture, and cannulated screw fixation were associated with a significantly greater reduction in the femoral offset. In the multivariate analysis, only Garden I fractures were associated with a greater reduction in femoral offset. DiscussionGarden I fractures were associated with a greater reduction in the offset, although there was no evidence that this change was related to early weightbearing. By identifying this risk factor, surgeons can optimize the indications given that the treatment of these fractures is still widely debated and there is still no consensus as to the best method. Level of evidenceIV