Next Article in Journal
A New Method to Assist Decision-Making of Water Environmental Emergency in Expressway Region
Previous Article in Journal
Comparing the Effects of Differential Learning, Self-Controlled Feedback, and External Focus of Attention Training on Biomechanical Risk Factors of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) in Athletes: A Randomized Controlled Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 16
10.3390/ijerph191610050
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Risk of Avascular Necrosis Following the Stabilization of Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Wojciech Konarski
1,*,
Tomasz Poboży
1,
Andrzej Kotela
2,
Andrzej Śliwczyński
3,
Ireneusz Kotela
4,
Martyna Hordowicz
5 and
Jan Krakowiak
3
1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ciechanów Hospital, 06-400 Ciechanów, Poland
2
Faculty of Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Woycickiego 1/3, 01-938 Warsaw, Poland
3
Social Medicine Institute, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland
4
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Central Research Hospital of Ministry of Interior, Wołoska 137, 02-507 Warsaw, Poland
5
General Psychiatry Unit III, Dr Barbara Borzym’s Independent Public Regional Psychiatric Health Care Center, 26-600 Radom, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(16), 10050; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610050
Submission received: 19 May 2022 / Revised: 10 August 2022 / Accepted: 11 August 2022 / Published: 15 August 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head often requires surgical treatment and is often associated with femoral neck fractures. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent research on the risk of AVN following the stabilization of fractured femoral neck with implants in PubMed. We assessed the effect of age on AVN incidence among patients aged > 50 and younger, depending on fracture type, Garden stage, Pouwels degree, Delbet stage, and age category. We followed PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were defined as research articles describing real-world studies reporting on the risk of AVN following primary surgical fracture stabilization with implants, published between 1 January 2011 and 22 April 2021. Fifty-two papers met the inclusion criteria, with a total of N = 5930 with surgically managed fractures. The pooled mean AVN incidence was significantly higher among patients with displaced fractures (20.7%; 95% CI: 12.8–28.5%) vs. those with undisplaced fractures (4.7%; 95% CI: 3.4–6.0%). No significant correlation was observed between AVN incidence weighted by sample size and time interval from injury to surgery (p = 0.843, R2 = 0.01). In conclusion, the risk of AVN following femoral neck fractures was generally high, especially in patients with displaced fractures. The time from injury to surgery did not correlate with AVN incidence.

1. Introduction

Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head involves osteonecrosis arising from altered blood supplies to the proximal femur [1]. Each year in the US alone, approximately 10,000–20,000 new cases occur [1]. AVN can arise from several causes, which may be classified as traumatic and atraumatic. [1] Femoral fractures can decrease blood flow to the femoral head, placing patients at risk of AVN [2,3]. Indeed, the fracture of the femoral neck or dislocation of the femoral head from the acetabulum is among the most common traumatic causes of AVN of the femoral head [1].
The most common symptom of AVN of the femoral head is radiating groin pain and possessing a limited range of motion with respect to the affected hip, with pain experienced during the forced internal rotation of the hip. Physical activity may aggravate the pain but it is often also present at rest [1]. The diagnosis of AVN is usually made based on both clinical presentation and appropriate imaging (X-ray, radionuclide bone scanning, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) [1]. The treatment of AVN of the femoral head depends on the advancement of necrosis at the time of diagnosis, the age of the patient, the level of pain and discomfort experienced by the patient, their overall health, comorbidities, and AVN stage (pre-or post- articular surface collapse) [1,2,3,4,5]. Non-operative methods are generally employed in patients with small- or medium-sized pre-collapse lesions [1]. Operative procedures can be divided into two categories. Joint-preserving methods (i.e., core decompression, bone grafts, biological therapies, tantalum implants, and osteotomy) are suitable for patients at pre-collapse stages. In contrast, patients with more advanced AVN generally require joint reconstruction surgery (hemi-resurfacing arthroplasty and hemipolar or bipolar hip replacement) [4].
The objective of this systematic review was to summarise recent research findings on the risk of AVN after stabilizing the fractured femoral neck with screws, plates, or other types of implants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

The review followed PRISMA [6] (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines and is available as a supplementary file (Supplementary File S1). PubMed was searched on 11 May 2021 to identify relevant studies published between 1 January 2011 and 22 April 2021, using a combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) and free-text terms related to hip fracture (neck of femur fracture and femoral neck fracture), surgery (internal fixation/internal fixators), and outcome of interest (avascular necrosis and avascular necrosis of femur head). Bibliographic details and abstracts for all citations identified through the PubMed search were exported into EndNote version 20 to remove duplicate papers and for screening titles and abstracts.
The entire protocol of the review, including the search strategy, is available in Supplementary Materials (Supplementary File S2). The protocol was not registered with a systematic review database.

2.2. Study Selection Process

A single reviewer performed screening, which was checked by a second senior reviewer. Two reviewers performed data extraction from the papers, which met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in Table 1.
Relevant citations were defined as original research articles describing real-world studies (excluding case reports or case series with ≤10 cases) and reporting on the risk of AVN incidence following the primary surgical stabilization of the fracture with implants (arthroplasty procedures were excluded). We did not exclude studies based on implant types or fracture reduction methods, which may depend on patient condition and surgeon’ preference and experience. Studies focused on patients with neglected fractures who underwent surgery several weeks after the causative injury were also excluded.
Of particular interest was comparing the risk of AVN between patients managed conservatively and those whose fractures were stabilized surgically. Nonetheless, studies, in which different surgical approaches were compared were also included. No comparisons between other surgical methods were planned.

2.3. The Rationale for the Study

We sought to assess recent research findings on the risk of AVN after stabilising the fractured femoral neck with implants such as screws, plates, or wires in the real-world setting. We focused on research questions in which the analysis of real-world data from unselected patient populations may provide particularly relevant information, such as how the real-world incidence of AVN varies by the type of fracture and by time intervals from injury to surgery.
A previous Cochrane review published in 2001 observed lower AVN incidences with the sliding hip screw compared with different cancellous screws. However, based on the overall body of evidence with regards to all relevant post-surgical outcomes assessed in that review, no overall recommendations on the choice of implant were provided [7]. We therefore did not attempt to conduct comparisons between specific implant types.

2.4. Dependent Variables Studied

2.4.1. Fracture Classification

The incidence of AVN is presented by fracture type (displaced vs. undisplaced) and according to three different fracture classifications: the Garden classification, Pauwels’ classification, and the Delbet classification (pediatric studies only). The commonly used Garden classification was first described in 1961 [8] and describes fracture severities using staging (I–IV), based on the degree of fracture displacement as observed on anteroposterior radiographs [8,9]. Pauwels’ classification has been in use since 1935 and was the first developed biomechanical classification for femoral neck fractures, although its significance has since somewhat declined [10]. Femoral neck fractures are classified into Pauwels degrees I–III according to the angle of their inclination relative to the horizontal plane and, therefore, the forces acting on the fracture line [10,11]. Delbet’s classification is widely used to describe pediatric hip fractures and was first published in 1907 [12]. Delbet’s classification defines fracture types I–IV based on the anatomic location of the fracture line [12], which is related to the risk of AVN development [13]. The three classifications are described in Table 2.

2.4.2. Patient Age

The effect of age on AVN risk was assessed by analyzing the incidence of AVN in patients aged 20–50 years vs. those aged > 50 years. This age cut-off was selected to assess the possible differential risk of AVN in middle-aged vs. younger patients in light of clinical guidelines recommending arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with displaced fractures [14,15].

2.4.3. Meta-Analysis

Due to the apparent heterogeneity of both study designs and their real-world settings, no formal testing for heterogeneity was employed. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled incidence of AVN depending on fracture type (displaced vs. undisplaced), Garden stage, Pouwels’ degree, Delbet stage, and age category (20–50 years vs. >50 years). The meta-analysis results are presented as pooled means with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

2.4.4. AVN Incidence and Time Interval from Injury to Surgery

The incidence of AVN in patients undergoing fracture stabilization surgery was assessed with respect to the the time interval between injury and surgery by using a general regression model. Mean or median time from injury to surgery, whichever was reported, was used in the analysis. The maximal reported time interval was used for studies that reported all surgeries within a given number of hours from injury.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

The search strategy rendered 89 citations, of which 22 were excluded during the title and abstract screening stage so that a total of 67 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Of these, 15 were excluded because the vast majority (n = 10) were unavailable in English. Overall, 52 articles were included. Outcomes of the selection process are documented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1).

3.2. Overview of Included Studies

The majority of included studies were retrospective (n = 43). The sample size ranged from 17 to 417 participants. Three studies reported solely on pediatric populations [16,17,18], while nine studies included only participants above 50 years of age [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. The studies included those that reported the use of both closed and open fracture-reduction techniques and employed a wide range of implants, most commonly cannulated screws (28 studies). Only one study described conservatively managed patients, and no comparison of AVN risk between surgical and non-surgical treatment could be made [18]. An overview of the included studies is presented in Table 3.
AVN was reported across the included studies in 0–53.4% of patients whose fractures were surgically managed. The timeframe from surgery to AVN detection was broad, ranging from as early as three months [28] up to 5 months [21,29,30] or more [31,32] years post-surgery.
Bali et al. was the only study that reported on 13 pediatrics patients managed conservatively in addition to 23 pediatrics patients who received surgery [18]. Although the incidence of AVN after a mean follow-up of 2.7 years (range, 1.1–9.5 years) was 16.7% in patients who received surgical treatment and 2.8% in those managed conservatively, fracture reductions were lost in 8 out of 13 patients, requiring surgical stabilization [18]. Furthermore, patients who were managed conservatively were solely those with undisplaced fractures (n = 8) and those in whom other concomitant injuries prohibited surgical management (n = 5) [18]; in this case, the comparison of AVN risk between surgically and conservatively managed patients in this study should be interpreted with caution.
Table
Table 3. Overview of studies included in the review.
Table 3. Overview of studies included in the review.
Study IDCountryStudy Design *Cohort Size, NInterventionPost-Surgery Follow-UpBaseline AgeDisplaced Fractures, N (%)Undisplaced, N (%)
Bajada 2015 [19]United KingdomRetrospective study111 fractures in 108 patientsInternal fixation with cannulated screws≥90 daysMean 79 years (range; 60–96 years)NA111, (100%)
Bali 2011 [18]IndiaRetrospective study36Closed or open reduction and internal fixation. Implants included partially threaded cancellous screws or pediatric dynamic hip screwMean 2.7 years (range, 1.1–9.5 years)Mean 10 years (range, 3–16 years)28, (77.8%)8, (22.2%)
Chen 2017 [33]ChinaRetrospective study86Closed reduction with cannulated compression screw or dynamic hip system bladeMean 27 months (range, 24–36 months)Mean 53.8 years (range, 26–83 years)42, (48.8%)44, (51.2%)
Do 2016 [34]NorwayRetrospective cohort study383Fixation with 2 parallel screws or 3 screws Median 77 months (range 23–125 months)Median 81 years (range 72–86 years)NA383, (100%)
Duckworth 2011 [35]United KingdomProspective single-arm study122Closed or open reduction and fixation using three cannulated screwsMean 58 months (18–155 months)Mean age 49 years (range, 17–60 years)122, (100%)NA
Elgeidi 2017 [36]EgyptRetrospective study35Closed reduction and internal fixation using dynamic hip screw and fibular strut graft27.2 months (range 6–41 months)37 years (range 20–50 years)35, (100%)NA
Fan 2017 [37]ChinaRetrospective study65Closed reduction and internal fixation with 3 screws≤2 yearsMedian age 61 years (range, 19–84 years)26, (40%)39, (60%)
Gregersen 2015 [20]DenmarkCase–cohort study322Fixation with 3 cannulated screws2 yearsAll patients ≥ 65 years, mean 82 years (±8.3)155, (48%)167, (52%)
Han 2017 [38]KoreaRetrospective study53Closed reduction and internal fixation with 3 cannulated screwsMean 29.5 monthsMean age 59.1 years (range, 31–82 years)14, (26.4%)39, (63.6%)
Hoelsbrekken 2012 [39]NorwayRetrospective study337Closed reduction and internal fixation with hip pins>3 monthsMedian age 82 years220, (65.3%)117, (34.7%)
Huang 2011 [40]TaiwanRetrospective study146Closed reduction and internal fixation with parallel cannulated screws in inverted triangle or diamond configurationsMean 4.76 years (range, 2–6 years)Mean 46.6 years (range, 17–60 years)42, (28.8%)104, (71.2%)
Huang 2020 [41]ChinaRetrospective study67Gotfried closed reduction and internal fixation with cannulated cancellous screwsMean 22.5 ± 11.3 months (range, 11–34 months)All patients ≤65 years, mean 48.9 years30, (44.8%)37, (55.2%)
Jo 2016 [42]KoreaRetrospective study 45Closed reduction in displaced fractures and internal fixation with multiple screws or compression hip screw for all fractures≥2 years (range, 24–75 months)Mean 48 years (range 19–69 years)27, (60%)18, (40%)
Ju 2016 [16]ChinaRetrospective study58Closed reduction internal fixation (group 1) and open reduction internal fixation (group 2); several types of implants were usedMean 35.1 months (range, 17–61 months)Mean 9.1 years (range, 1 year and 8 months–15 years and 7 months)NRNR
Ju 2020 [21]ChinaRetrospective study73Closed reduction and internal fixation with cannulated screwsMean 61 months, (range, 13–128 months)Mean 68.22 years (range, 60–85 years)38, (52.1%)35, (47.9%)
Kang 2016 [43]KoreaRetrospective study84Internal fixation with cannulated screwsMean 36.8 months (range, 24–148 months)Mean 55.8 years (range, 16–88 years)35, (41.7%)49, (58.3%)
Kilian 2018 [44]SlovakiaRetrospective study82Fixation using a locking plate system with telescoping sliding screws (Targon FN implants)Mean 29 ± 7.1 (range, 24–62) monthsMean 71.6 years (range, 30–90 years)40, 48.8%).42, (51.2%)
Kim 2014 [22]KoreaRetrospective study58Internal fixation with multiple screwsMean 46.8 months (range; 12–151 months)Mean 77.5 years (range 65–96 years)NA58, (100%)
Kim 2021 [45]KoreaRetrospective study58Internal fixation with cannulated screw, compressive hip screw fixation or nailingMean 23.9 months (range, 4–242 months)Mean 40.0 years (range, 9–80 years)41, (70.1%)17, (29.3%)
Kumar 2014 [46]IndiaRetrospective study62Closed or open reduction and internal fixation with cannulated screws, or open reduction and fixation with a dynamic hip screw and a derotation
screw		≥2 years (range, 2.5–4 years)Mean 57.2 years (range, 45–82 years)38, (61.3%)24, (38.7%)
Li 2018 [47]ChinaRetrospective study185Study group (group A, treated with three cannulated screws with DCIABG) Control group (group B, treated with traditional three cannulated screws without DCIABG)Mean 29.26 months in group A and 28.74 months in group BMean 39.1 years in group A and 35.5 years in group B185, (100%)NA
Liu 2013 [48]ChinaProspective study45Internal fixation with 3 cannulated screwsMean 39.8 monthsMean 45.4 years (±14.2 years)24, (53.3%)20, (44.4%)
Luo 2017 [49]ChinaRetrospective study17Open reduction and internal fixation with a modified dynamic hip screw loaded with autologous bone graft≥24 months (range, 24–36 months)Mean 37.2 years (range, 27–52 years)NRNR
Manohara 2014 [23]SingaporeRetrospective study100Internal fixation with cancellous screwsMean 39 months (range, 25–76 months)Mean 78 years, (range, 61–94)NA100, (100%)
Min 2011 [28]KoreaRetrospective study146Open or closed reduction and fixation with a sliding
hip screw or cannulated screws		mean 5.2 years (range, 3 months–7 years)mean 45.7 years (range, 17–70 years)91, (62%)55, (38%)
Mukka 2020 [24]SwedenProspective pilot study235, including 65 patients treated with internal fixation and of interest to the reviewInternal fixation with two cannulated screwsMedian 26 months (range, 0–56 months)Median 83 years (range 61–98 years) NA65, (100%)
Novoa 2019 [29]SpainCase-control study121Internal fixation with cannulated titanium screws with a diameter of 6.5 mmMean 76.2 ± 31.6 months in ANFH group and 52.6 ± 25.1 months in the control group Mean 63.7 years (range,44–83) in the ANFH group and 69.7 years (range, 18–93) in the control groupNA121, (100%)
Osarumwense 2015 [50]United KingdomRetrospective study43Closed reduction (displaced fractures only) and fixation with the Targon FN implant≥24 months (range, 24–47 months)Mean 66 years (range, 24–94 years)12, (28%)31, (72%)
Park 2015 [25]KoreaRetrospective study19Fixation with Proximal Femoral Nail AntirotationMean 53.3 months (range, 30–72 months)Mean 77 years (range, 71–82 years)NA19, (100%)
Park 2021 [51]KoreaRetrospective study55In situ or post-reduction internal fixation with three parallel screws Mean 36.3 (median 29.5, range: 12–85) months and 36.2 (median 26.0, range: 13–120) months for the in situ and reduction groups, respectively Mean 52.6 ± 10.3 year for the in-situ group and 51.3 ± 9.8 years for the reduction groupNA55, (100%)
Parker 2013 [52]United KingdomRetrospective study320Fixation with a dynamic locking plate (Targon FN)Mean 2.5 years (range, 2.0–10)Mean 76.0 years (range, 22–103)208, (65%)112, (35%)
Pei 2020 [31]ChinaRetrospective study250Closed or open reduction and fixation with 2–3 hollow compression screwsMean 7.5 years (range, 1–15 years)Mean 56.4 ± 6.8 years (range, 18–59 years)142, (56.8%)108, (43.2%)
Razik 2012 [53]United KingdomRetrospective study92Fixation using cannulated screws, dynamic hip screws, or a dynamic hip screw with a derotation screwMean 2 yearsMean 44.7 years (range, 11–59), (median age, 50 years)68, (73.9%)24, (26.1%)
Riaz 2016 [26]United KingdomRetrospective study251Fixation with cannulated hip screwsNRMean 77 years (range 60–101 years)NA251, (100%)
Şahin 2020 [54]TurkeyRetrospective study78Closed reduction and internal fixation, (Dynamic hip screw and antirotation screw—group 1, Cannulated screw—group 2)Mean 18.1 months (range, 12–36 months) for group 1 and 14.2 months (range, 12–25 months) for group 2Group 1- (mean age 45.7 years; range, 19–62 years), group 2—(mean age 41.9 years; range, 17–75 years)34, (43.6%)44, (56.4%)
Sales 2012 [55]IranProspective cohort study51Fixation using 3 cancellous screws in a reverse triangle arrangement≤1 yearMean 49.12 ± 16.8 yearsNRNR
Samy 2015 [56]EgyptProspective study60Group A—closed reduction and internal fixation with three cannulated screws Group B—addition of PRP to internal fixation12–48 months with a mean of 28 monthsRange 20–45 for both groups; mean age 30 ± 7.8:32 ± 6.4 for group A and 28 ± 8.4 for group B60, (100%)NA
Schweitzer 2012 [57]ChileRetrospective study29Closed or open reduction and internal fixation with cannulated screwsMedian 28 months (range 24–144 months)Mean 46.45 ± 11.59 years29, (100%)NA
Sjöholm 2019 [58]SwedenRetrospective cohort study417Closed reduction and internal fixationMean 3.4 years (range, 2–14)Median 78 years (range, 50–108 years)NA417, (100%)
Su 2011 [59]ChinaRetrospective study25Minimally traumatic reduction with K-wires or Steinman pins and fixation with three cannulated screws Mean 4.6 years (range, 3–5 years)Mean 35 years (range, 19–54 years)25, (100%)NA
Sun 2021 [60]ChinaProspective cohort study75Closed reduction and internal fixation using three parallel FTHCS≥2 yearsMean 48.76 years, (range,18–65 years)48, (64%)27, (36%)
Wang 2014 [30]ChinaRetrospective study146Open or closed reduction and internal fixation with 2 or 3 cannulated cancellous screwsMean 52 months (range, 9–84 months)Mean 47.5 years (range, 18–68 years)90, (61.6%)56, (38.4%)
Wang 2018 [32]TaiwanSingle-centre retrospective study117Closed reduction and unilateral internal fixation with cannulated screws≥2 years (range, 2–8 years)Mean 55.4 years (range, 50–60 years)69, (59%)48, (41%)
Wang 2019 [61]ChinaRetrospective study241Closed reduction and internal fixation>18 monthsMean 53.46 yearsNRNR
Wei 2021 [62]TaiwanRetrospective study22Fixation with single construct with/without an antirotational screw or dual constructsMedian 12 months (interquartile range, 12–24 months)Mean 45.18 years ± 16.00 yearsNRNR
Wu 2020 [17]ChinaRetrospective study16 patients, 17 hipsOpen or closed reduction and internal fixation using K-wire pinning or screwMean 23.2 months (range 10–58months)Mean 10.4 years, (range, 1–14 years)16, (94.1%)1, (5.9%)
Xiao 2018 [27]ChinaSingle-centre, retrospective study36Closed reduction and fixation with dynamic compression locking systemMean 21.58 ± 5.41 months, (range, 12–29 months)Mean 65.33 ± 9.30 years (range,53–82)27, (75%)9, (25%)
Xiong 2019 [63]ChinaRetrospective study46Closed reduction and fixation with multiple cannulated screws (6.5 mm in diameter) in inverted triangle or diamond configurationMean 22.0 months (range, 12–36 months)Mean 50.3 years (range, 19–60 years)46, (100%)NA
Ye 2017 [64]ChinaRetrospective study28Open reduction and internal fixation using cannulated screws and medial buttress plate fixationMean 13.6 months (range, 12–18 months)Mean 42.1 years (range, 29–57 years)NRNR
Zahid 2012 [65]IndiaRetrospective study33Closed reduction and fixation using 7.0-mm cannulated cancellous screws and fibular strut graftsMean 2 (range, 1–4) years40–60 years (mean, 52 years)33, (100%)NA
Zeng 2017 [66]ChinaCase-control study325Closed reduction and internal fixation with cancellous screwsMean 42 months (range 37–46 months)Mean 74 years (range 50–94 years)220, (67.7%)105, (32.3%)
Zhuang 2019 [67]ChinaRetrospective study26Open reduction and fixation with anteromedial
femoral neck plate with cannulated screws		Mean 18 months (range 12–30 months)Mean 36.5 years (range 19–44 years)26, (100%)NA
* In some cases, the study’s design was not explicitly reported, and the study’s type was determined by the reviewer based on available methodology. Abbreviations: ANFH, avascular necrosis of the femoral head; DCIABG, deep circumflex iliac artery-bone grafting; FTHCS, fully threaded headless cannulated screws; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; PRP, platelet-rich plasma.

3.3. Incidence of AVN

3.3.1. AVN Incidence in Displaced and Undisplaced Fractures

A total of 25 studies reported both the number of included patients with displaced fractures and the incidence of AVN in these patients [17,18,21,27,28,30,32,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,44,45,50,52,53,56,59,60,65,66,67], and they were included in the meta-analysis. For undisplaced fractures, the corresponding data were available for analysis from 28 studies [17,18,19,21,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,37,38,39,40,42,43,44,45,50,51,52,53,60,66]. The pooled mean AVN incidence was significantly higher among patients with displaced fractures (20.7%; 95% CI: 12.8–28.5%) than among those with undisplaced fractures (4.7%; 95% CI: 3.4–6.0%).

3.3.2. AVN Incidence by Garden Stage

Data on the incidence of AVN by Garden stage were derived from studies reporting both the number of patients with a given stage and AVN incidence for that stage. A total of 10 studies reported Garden stage I fractures [17,21,30,37,38,42,44,45,51,61,66], 10 studies reported Garden stage II fractures [17,21,27,30,37,38,42,44,45,66], 13 reported Garden stage III [17,21,27,30,36,37,38,42,44,45,56,65,66] fractures, and 12 reported Garden stage IV fractures [17,21,30,36,37,38,42,44,45,56,65,66]. The pooled mean incidence of AVN was 13.6% for stage I (95% CI: 0–28.4%); 12.2% (95% CI: 0–26.2%) for stage II; 17.0% for stage III (95% CI: 6.4–27.6%); and 32.8% for stage IV (95% CI: 11.8–53.8%) with no significant differences between the Garden stages.

3.3.3. AVN Incidence by Pauwels’ Degree

Data on the incidence of AVN by fracture degree according to Pauwel’s classification were derived from studies reporting both the number of patients with a given degree and AVN incidence for that degree. Only two studies reported data for Pauwel’s degrees I and II [21,42]. Data from 5 studies were available for degree III fractures [21,42,49,60,64]. The pooled mean incidence of AVN was 21.8% (95% CI: 0–70.4%) for Pauwel’s degree I fractures, 10.3% (95% CI: 0–25.9%) for degree II fractures, and 5.5% (95% CI: 0–12.4%) for degree III fractures, with no significant differences between different Pauwels’ degrees (Figure 2). However, given the small number of studies contributing data, particularly for degrees I and II, conclusions should be cautiously drawn.

3.3.4. AVN Incidence by Delbet’s Type

Delbet’s classification of fractures is used in pediatrics and was represented by a limited number of studies in this review. Only studies reporting the number of patients with a given fracture type and AVN incidence for that type were included. Although three pediatric studies were identified in the review [16,17,18], Ju et al. [16] did not report the incidence of AVN by fracture type; thus, the study was not included in the meta-analysis. This resulted in two studies contributing data for Delbet’s types I, II, and III [17,18] and single research contributing data for Delbet’s type IV [18] due to the lack of patients with type IV fractures in the study by Wu et al. [17]. Increasing Delbet stages represents decreasing AVN risk. This trend could also be observed in the present review (Figure 2). However, the differences in AVN incidence between Delbet stages were not statistically significant. The results should be interpreted with extreme caution due to the small number of pediatric studies.

3.3.5. AVN Incidence by Age Category

Patients’ age was categorized as 20–50 or >50 years old. Data on the incidence of AVN by age were derived from studies reporting both the number of patients within a given age category and AVN incidence for that category. For patients aged 20–50 years, data from four studies were available for analysis [36,47,56,67], while nine studies [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] contributed data for patients aged > 50 years. The pooled mean AVN incidence was 7.6% among patients aged > 50 years (95% CI: 2.8–12.3%) and was not significantly different from the incidence in patients aged 20–50 years (7.5%, 95% CI: −4.1–19.1.5%).

3.4. The Relationship between AVN Incidence and Time Interval from Injury to Surgery

A total of 28 studies reported on both AVN incidence and the time interval between injury and surgery [16,17,22,25,27,28,29,30,32,33,36,40,41,42,43,44,45,47,49,51,52,54,55,56,57,59,65,67]. There was no significant correlation between AVN incidence weighted by sample size and time interval from injury to surgery, with a slope of weighted linear regression equal to −0.01 (p = 0.843, R2 = 0.01) (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

The present review summarised the risk of AVN following surgery to stabilize femoral neck fractures. In the meta-analysis of AVN incidences by fracture displacement, the incidence of AVN was significantly higher in patients with displaced (corresponding to Garden III–IV) compared with undisplaced (corresponding to Garden I–II) fractures. However, when the four Garden stages were assessed individually, no significant differences in AVN incidence between locations were identified. Similarly, no significant differences in AVN incidence were observed between different Pauwels’ angles and Delbet stages. However, due to the small number of studies using clinical classifications, the results should be interpreted with caution. Regarding age, the incidence of AVN was not significantly different between patients aged 20–50 years and those aged > 50 years; however, numerically lower AVN incidence was observed in the latter group. Finally, AVN incidence did not correlate with the time between injury and surgery.
The findings of this review confirm previous reports of increased AVN risk in displaced compared with undisplaced fractures. A meta-analysis by Xu et al., including 2065 patients from 17 case-control studies, demonstrated that the risk of AVN after internal fixation was 0.4-fold higher in patients with displaced fractures (Garden III–IV) than in patients without displacements (Garden I–II) [68].
Regarding the relationship between AVN incidence and the time interval between surgery and injury, the present study’s results are similar to two previously published meta-analyses [68,69]. In a meta-analysis specifically assessing the effect of injury-to-operation interval on the development of late complications, no significant differences in the risk of AVN were detected when comparing surgery performed within and outside of 6, 12, and 24 h intervals from injury and when comparing AVN risk following surgery conducted within 6 h post-injury with surgery performed > 24 h post-injury [69]. Similarly, Xu et al.’s meta-analysis detected no statistically significant difference in AVN risk based on an injury-to-operation interval of ≤24 h vs. >24 h [68].
The observed lack of increased AVN risk in older patients is also consistent with Xu et al., who reported no significant difference in the risk of AVN between patients aged ≤ 60 years and >60 years [68]. It should be noted that the meta-analysis by Xu et al. used a different age categorization compared to the present study in which patients were classified as ≤50 or >50 years old, and the incidence of AVN was numerically higher in the younger patient group. However, both the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) [14] and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) [15] guidelines recommend arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with displaced fractures, and these procedures were excluded from the present review. Therefore, it is likely that patients aged > 50 years included in the present review experienced fractures associated with an improved prognosis than younger patients, which influenced the relative incidence of AVN in these groups. Indeed, among the nine studies reporting only on patients aged > 50 years [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], six studies included only patients with undisplaced fractures [19,22,23,24,25,26]. In contrast, among four studies reporting only patients aged 20–50 years [36,47,56,67], all included only patients with displaced fractures.
The strengths of this review include a substantial number of studies captured and a broad scope of the review in terms of study settings, fracture types, patient age, and the type of implant used. The real-world nature of the included studies supports the applicability of the review findings to everyday clinical practice. Regarding the limitations of this review, no conclusions could be derived on AVN incidence following the stabilization of different fracture types according to Pauwels’ and Delbet’s classifications due to the small number of studies rendering relevant data. Furthermore, while both the Ficat classification and the Steinberg classification are often used to classify the severity of AVN [4], only one of the included studies reported AVN severity according to the Fi-cat classification [54]. This paucity of data on AVN severity meant that it could not be accounted for in the review and meta-analysis. Another important limitation is the heterogeneity of the reviewed studies, which may be a source for bias and does not allow the analysis of AVN risks in specific populations; therefore, more analyses will be planned in order to deepen the knowledge regarding the possible differences in incidence and severity of AVN in selected age groups and after different types of interventions.

5. Conclusions

The risk of AVN following femoral neck fractures was substantial and significantly higher for displaced (Garden III–IV) than undisplaced (Garden I–II) fractures. The time interval from injury to surgery did not correlate with AVN incidence. The review results highlight the substantial long-term risk of AVN, particularly in patients with displaced fractures, and call for prolonged post-surgical follow-up for patients with femoral neck fractures.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph191610050/s1, Supplementary File S1: PRISMA checklist, Supplementary File S2: Systematic review protocol.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.K., T.P., A.K., A.Ś., I.K. and J.K.; methodology, W.K.; formal analysis, W.K., T.P., A.K., A.Ś., I.K., M.H. and J.K.; investigation, W.K.; data curation, T.P., W.K. and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, W.K.; writing—review and editing, W.K., T.P. and A.K.; visualization, W.K.; supervision, W.K., T.P., A.K., A.Ś., I.K., M.H. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Publication was funded by the Medical University of Lodz, Department of Social Medicine (project No. 503/6-029-01/503-61-001-19-00).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Barney, J.; Piuzzi, N.S.; Akhondi, H. Femoral Head Avascular Necrosis; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Matthews, A.H.; Davis, D.D.; Fish, M.J.; Stitson, D. Avascular Necrosis; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Shah, K.N.; Racine, J.; Jones, L.C.; Aaron, R.K. Pathophysiology and risk factors for osteonecrosis. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2015, 8, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moya-Angeler, J. Current concepts on osteonecrosis of the femoral head. World J. Orthop. 2015, 6, 590–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Arbab, D.; König, D.P. Atraumatic Femoral Head Necrosis in Adults. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2016, 113, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Parker, M.J.; Gurusamy, K.S. Internal fixation implants for intracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2001, CD001467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Garden, R.S. Low-Angle Fixation in Fractures of the Femoral Neck. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol. 1961, 43, 647–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lutnick, E.; Kang, J.; Freccero, D.M. Surgical Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures: A Brief Review. Geriatrics 2020, 5, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bartonícek, J. Pauwels’ Classification of Femoral Neck Fractures: Correct Interpretation of the Original. J. Orthop. Trauma 2001, 15, 358–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Caviglia, H.A.; Osorio, P.Q.; Comando, D. Classification and Diagnosis of Intracapsular Fractures of the Proximal Femur. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2002, 399, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boardman, M.J.; Herman, M.J.; Buck, B.; Pizzutillo, P.D. Hip Fractures in Children. JAAOS J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2009, 17, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dial, B.L.; Lark, R.K. Pediatric proximal femur fractures. J. Orthop. 2018, 15, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wendt, K.; Heim, D.; Josten, C.; Kdolsky, R.; Oestern, H.-J.; Palm, H.; Sintenie, J.B.; Komadina, R.; Copuroglu, C. Recommendations on hip fractures. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2016, 42, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. 5 September 2014. Available online: https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/quality-and-practice-resources/hipfractures-in-the-elderly/hip-fractures-elderly-clinical-practice-guideline-4-24-19--2.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2021).
  16. Ju, L.; Jiang, B.; Lou, Y.; Zheng, P. Delayed treatment of femoral neck fractures in 58 children: Open reduction internal fixation versus closed reduction internal fixation. J. Pediatr. Orthop. B 2016, 25, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wu, C.; Ning, B.; Xu, P.; Song, J.; Wang, D. Efficacy and complications after delayed fixation of femoral neck fractures in children. J. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 28, 2309499019889682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bali, K.; Sudesh, P.; Patel, S.; Kumar, V.; Saini, U.; Dhillon, M.S. Pediatric Femoral Neck Fractures: Our 10 Years of Experience. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2011, 3, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bajada, S.; Smith, A.; Morgan, D. Pre-operative nutritional serum parameters as predictors of failure after internal fixation in undisplaced intracapsular proximal femur fractures. Injury 2015, 46, 1571–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gregersen, M.; Krogshede, A.; Brink, O.; Damsgaard, E.M. Prediction of Reoperation of Femoral Neck Fractures Treated with Cannulated Screws in Elderly Patients. Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2015, 6, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ju, F.-X.; Hou, R.-X.; Xiong, J.; Shi, H.-F.; Chen, Y.-X.; Wang, J.-F. Outcomes of Femoral Neck Fractures Treated with Cannulated Internal Fixation in Elderly Patients: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 12, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kim, J.W.; Byun, S.-E.; Chang, J.S. The clinical outcomes of early internal fixation for undisplaced femoral neck fractures and early full weight-bearing in elderly patients. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2014, 134, 941–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Manohara, R.; Liang, S.; Huang, D.; Krishna, L. Cancellous Screw Fixation for Undisplaced Femoral Neck Fractures in the Elderly. J. Orthop. Surg. 2014, 22, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mukka, S.; Sjöholm, P.; Aziz, A.; Eisler, T.; Kadum, B.; Krupic, F.; Morberg, P.; Sayed-Noor, A. A cohort study comparing internal fixation for undisplaced versus hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fracture in the elderly: A pilot study for a clinical trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020, 6, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Park, B.-J.; Cho, H.-M.; Min, W.-B. Surgical Treatment of Undisplaced Femur Neck Fractures in Dementia Patients Using Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation. Hip Pelvis 2015, 27, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Riaz, O.; Arshad, R.; Nisar, S.; Vanker, R. Serum albumin and fixation failure with cannulated hip screws in undisplaced intracapsular femoral neck fracture. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2016, 98, 376–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Xiao, Y.-P.; Shu, D.-P.; Bei, M.-J.; Ji, T.; Kan, W.-S.; Li, S.-G. The clinical application of a novel method of internal fixation for femoral neck fractures-dynamic locking compression system. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2018, 13, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Min, B.-W.; Kim, S.-J. Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head after Osteosynthesis of Femoral Neck Fracture. Orthopedics 2011, 34, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Novoa-Parra, C.; Pérez-Ortiz, S.; López-Trabucco, R.; Blas-Dobón, J.; Rodrigo-Pérez, J.; Lizaur-Utrilla, A. Factores asociados al desarrollo de necrosis avascular de cabeza femoral tras fractura del cuello femoral no desplazada tratada con fijación interna. Rev. Esp. Cir. Orthop. Traumatol. 2019, 63, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wang, T.; Sun, J.-Y.; Zha, G.-C.; Jiang, T.; You, Z.-J.; Yuan, D.-J. Analysis of Risk Factors for Femoral Head Necrosis after Internal Fixation in Femoral Neck Fractures. Orthopedics 2014, 37, e1117–e1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pei, F.; Zhao, R.; Li, F.; Chen, X.; Guo, K.; Zhu, L. Osteonecrosis of femoral head in young patients with femoral neck fracture: A retrospective study of 250 patients followed for average of 7.5 years. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2020, 15, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, C.-T.; Chen, J.-W.; Wu, K.; Chen, C.-S.; Chen, W.-C.; Pao, J.-L.; Chang, C.-H.; Lan, T.-Y. Suboptimal outcomes after closed reduction and internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures in middle-aged patients: Is internal fixation adequate in this age group? BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2018, 19, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, C.; Yu, L.; Tang, X.; Liu, M.-Z.; Sun, L.-Z.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Z.; Li, C.-Z. Dynamic hip system blade versus cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: A retrospective study. Acta Orthop. Traumatol. Turc. 2017, 51, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Do, L.N.D.; Kruke, T.M.; Foss, O.A.; Basso, T. Reoperations and mortality in 383 patients operated with parallel screws for Garden I-II femoral neck fractures with up to ten years follow-up. Injury 2016, 47, 2739–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Duckworth, A.D.; Bennet, S.J.; Aderinto, J.; Keating, J.F. Fixation of intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in young patients. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol. 2011, 93, 811–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Elgeidi, A.; El Negery, A.; Abdellatif, M.S.; El Moghazy, N. Dynamic hip screw and fibular strut graft for fixation of fresh femoral neck fracture with posterior comminution. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2017, 137, 1363–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Fan, W.; Zhu, L.; Chen, J.; Guo, C.; Yan, Z. Identifying Patients Who Will Most Benefit from Single Photon Emission Computerized Tomography and Computerized Tomography After Femoral Neck Fracture. Med. Sci. Monit. 2017, 23, 5669–5674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Han, S.; Oh, M.; Yoon, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.-W.; Chang, J.-S.; Ryu, J.-S. Risk Stratification for Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head after Internal Fixation of Femoral Neck Fractures by Post-Operative Bone SPECT/CT. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2017, 51, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hoelsbrekken, S.; Opsahl, J.-H.; Stiris, M.; Paulsrud, Ø.; Strømsøe, K. Behandlingssvikt ved osteosyntese av lårhalsbrudd. Tidsskr. Den Nor. Legeforening 2012, 132, 1343–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huang, T.-W.; Hsu, W.-H.; Peng, K.-T.; Lee, C.-Y. Effect of integrity of the posterior cortex in displaced femoral neck fractures on outcome after surgical fixation in young adults. Injury 2011, 42, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Huang, K.; Fang, X.; Li, G.; Yue, J. Assessing the effect of Gotfried reduction with positive buttress pattern in the young femoral neck fracture. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2020, 15, 511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jo, S.; Lee, S.H.; Lee, H.J. The Correlation between the Fracture Types and the Complications after Internal Fixation of the Femoral Neck Fractures. Hip Pelvis 2016, 28, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kang, J.S.; Moon, K.H.; Shin, J.S.; Shin, E.H.; Ahn, C.H.; Choi, G.H. Clinical Results of Internal Fixation of Subcapital Femoral Neck Fractures. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2016, 8, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kilian, M.; Csörgő, P.; Šajter, M.; Šimkovic, P.; Vajcziková, S.; Zamborský, R. Locking Plate Fixation with Multiple Telescoping Sliding Screws for Femoral Neck Fractures. Ortop. Traumatol. Rehabil. 2018, 20, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kim, C.-H.; Shin, M.; Lee, D.; Choi, S.J.; Moon, D.H. Hidden osteonecrosis of the femoral head after healed femoral neck fractures: Magnetic resonance imaging study of 58 consecutive patients. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021, 142, 1443–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kumar, M.N.; Belehalli, P.; Ramachandra, P. PET/CT Study of Temporal Variations in Blood Flow to the Femoral Head Following Low-energy Fracture of the Femoral Neck. Orthopedics 2014, 37, e563–e570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, G.; Jin, D.; Shao, X.; Liu, Z.; Duan, J.; Akileh, R.; Cao, S.; Liu, T. Effect of cannulated screws with deep circumflex iliac artery-bone grafting in the treatment of femoral neck fracture in young adults. Injury 2018, 49, 1587–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, Y.; Li, M.; Zhang, M.; Sun, K.; Wang, H.; Yuan, X.; Cai, L. Femoral neck fractures: Prognosis based on a new classification after superselective angiography. J. Ortop. Sci. 2013, 18, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Luo, D.; Zou, W.; He, Y.; Xian, H.; Wang, L.; Shen, J.; Lian, K.; Lin, D. Modified dynamic hip screw loaded with autologous bone graft for treating Pauwels type-3 vertical femoral neck fractures. Injury 2017, 48, 1579–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Osarumwense, D.; Tissingh, E.; Wartenberg, K.; Aggarwal, S.; Ismail, F.; Orakwe, S.; Khan, F. The Targon FN System for the Management of Intracapsular Neck of Femur Fractures: Minimum 2-Year Experience and Outcome in an Independent Hospital. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2015, 7, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Park, Y.-C.; Um, K.-S.; Kim, D.-J.; Byun, J.; Yang, K.-H. Comparison of femoral neck shortening and outcomes between in situ fixation and fixation after reduction for severe valgus-impacted femoral neck fractures. Injury 2021, 52, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Parker, M.; Cawley, S.; Palial, V. Internal fixation of intracapsular fractures of the hip using a dynamic locking plate. Bone Jt. J. 2013, 95, 1402–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Razik, F.; Alexopoulos, A.-S.; El-Osta, B.; Connolly, M.J.; Brown, A.; Hassan, S.; Ravikumar, K. Time to internal fixation of femoral neck fractures in patients under sixty years—Does this matter in the development of osteonecrosis of femoral head? Int. Orthop. 2012, 36, 2127–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Şahin, A.; Agar, A.; Gülabi, D.; Ertürk, C. Comparison of dynamic hip screw and antirotation screw with cannulated screw in the treatment of transcervical collum femoris fractures. Jt. Dis. Relat. Surg. 2020, 31, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sales, J.G.; Soleymaopour, J.; Sadeghpour, A.; Sharifi, S.; Rouhani, S.; Goldust, M. Efficacy of Reverse Triangle Screw Fixation in Patients Suffering from Femoral Neck Fractures. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 15, 395–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Samy, A.M. The role of platelet rich plasma in management of fracture neck femur: New insights. Int. Orthop. 2016, 40, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Schweitzer, D.; Melero, P.; Zylberberg, A.; Salabarrieta, J.; Urrutia, J. Factors associated with avascular necrosis of the femoral head and nonunion in patients younger than 65 years with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with reduction and internal fixation. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2013, 23, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sjöholm, P.; Otten, V.; Wolf, O.; Gordon, M.; Karsten, G.; Sköldenberg, O.; Mukka, S. Posterior and anterior tilt increases the risk of failure after internal fixation of Garden I and II femoral neck fracture. Acta Orthop. 2019, 90, 537–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Su, Y.; Chen, W.; Zhang, Q.; Li, B.; Li, Z.; Guo, M.; Pan, J.; Zhang, Y. An irreducible variant of femoral neck fracture: A minimally traumatic reduction technique. Injury 2011, 42, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sun, H.; Shu, L.-Y.; Sherrier, M.C.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, J.-W.; Zhang, W. Decreased complications but a distinctive fixation loosening mechanism of fully threaded headless cannulated screw fixation for femoral neck fractures in young adults. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2021, 16, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, Y.; Ma, J.; Yin, T.; Han, Z.; Cui, S.; Liu, Z.; Ma, X. Correlation Between Reduction Quality of Femoral Neck Fracture and Femoral Head Necrosis Based on Biomechanics. Orthop. Surg. 2019, 11, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wei, Y.P.; Lin, K.C. Dual-construct fixation is recommended in ipsilateral femoral neck fractures with infra-isthmus shaft fracture. Medicine 2021, 100, e25708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xiong, W.-F.; Chang, S.-M.; Zhang, Y.-Q.; Hu, S.-J.; Du, S.-C. Inferior calcar buttress reduction pattern for displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults: A preliminary report and an effective alternative. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2019, 14, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ye, Y.; Chen, K.; Tian, K.; Li, W.; Mauffrey, C.; Hak, D.J. Medial buttress plate augmentation of cannulated screw fixation in vertically unstable femoral neck fractures: Surgical technique and preliminary results. Injury 2017, 48, 2189–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zahid, M.; Sabir, A.B.; Asif, N.; Julfiqar, M.; Khan, A.; Ahmad, S.; Siddiqui, Y.S. Fixation Using Cannulated Screws and Fibular Strut Grafts for Fresh Femoral Neck Fractures with Posterior Comminution. J. Orthop. Surg. 2012, 20, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zeng, X.; Zhan, K.; Zhang, L.; Zeng, D.; Yu, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, M.; Lai, Z.; Chen, R. The impact of high total cholesterol and high low-density lipoprotein on avascular necrosis of the femoral head in low-energy femoral neck fractures. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2017, 12, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Zhuang, L.; Wang, L.; Xu, D.; Wang, Z. Anteromedial femoral neck plate with cannulated screws for the treatment of irreducible displaced femoral neck fracture in young patients: A preliminary study. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2019, 45, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Xu, J.-L.; Liang, Z.-R.; Xiong, B.-L.; Zou, Q.-Z.; Lin, T.-Y.; Yang, P.; Chen, D.; Zhang, Q.-W. Risk factors associated with osteonecrosis of femoral head after internal fixation of femoral neck fracture:a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Papakostidis, C.; Panagiotopoulos, A.; Piccioli, A.; Giannoudis, P.V. Timing of internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the final outcome. Injury 2015, 46, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 10050 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the review.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the review.
Ijerph 19 10050 g001
Ijerph 19 10050 g002 550
Figure 2. Results of the meta-analysis assessing AVN incidence according to the dependent variables examined.
Figure 2. Results of the meta-analysis assessing AVN incidence according to the dependent variables examined.
Ijerph 19 10050 g002
Ijerph 19 10050 g003 550
Figure 3. The relationship between AVN incidence and time from injury to surgery [16,17,22,25,27,28,29,30,32,33,36,40,41,42,43,44,45,47,49,51,52,54,55,56,57,59,65,67]. The size of the dot corresponds to the sample size of the study.
Figure 3. The relationship between AVN incidence and time from injury to surgery [16,17,22,25,27,28,29,30,32,33,36,40,41,42,43,44,45,47,49,51,52,54,55,56,57,59,65,67]. The size of the dot corresponds to the sample size of the study.
Ijerph 19 10050 g003
Table
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Studies Included in the ReviewStudies Excluded from the Review
  • Publication date: 1 January 2011 to 22 April 2021
  • Original research articles
  • Hip-preserving techniques
  • Studies comparing or using different surgical techniques or implants
  • Studies comparing hip-preserving techniques to non-surgical management
  • Case reports and case series with ≤10 patients
  • Biomechanical, animal studies
  • Reviews and meta-analyses
  • Papers focused primarily on arthroplasty outcomes or patients with neglected hip fractures
Table
Table 2. The Garden [8,9], Pauwels [10,11], and Delbet’s classification [12,13].
Table 2. The Garden [8,9], Pauwels [10,11], and Delbet’s classification [12,13].
ClassificationTypeDescriptionOther
GardenStage Iincomplete fracture; undisplaced, valgus impacted Ijerph 19 10050 i001
Stage IIcomplete fracture; undisplaced
Stage IIIcomplete fracture; partially displaced
Stage IVcomplete fracture; fully displaced
Pauwel’sAngle between fracture line and horizontal planeDominant forces
Degree IUp to 30 degreesCompressive forces predominate
Degree II30–50 degreesShearing stress is present and may adversely impact healing
Degree III50 degrees and moreShearing stress dominates
Delbet’sType ITransphyseal fracture, with or without dislocation of the capital femoral epiphysis Ijerph 19 10050 i002
Type IITranscervical fracture
Type IIICervicotrochanteric fracture.
Type IVIntertrochanteric fracture
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Konarski, W.; Poboży, T.; Kotela, A.; Śliwczyński, A.; Kotela, I.; Hordowicz, M.; Krakowiak, J. The Risk of Avascular Necrosis Following the Stabilization of Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610050

AMA Style

Konarski W, Poboży T, Kotela A, Śliwczyński A, Kotela I, Hordowicz M, Krakowiak J. The Risk of Avascular Necrosis Following the Stabilization of Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(16):10050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Konarski, Wojciech, Tomasz Poboży, Andrzej Kotela, Andrzej Śliwczyński, Ireneusz Kotela, Martyna Hordowicz, and Jan Krakowiak. 2022. "The Risk of Avascular Necrosis Following the Stabilization of Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 16: 10050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610050

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop