A survey of the treatment of displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in the UK
Introduction
A patient with a proximal femoral “hip” fracture is admitted to each district general hospital in the UK, on average, nearly every day [1]. Whilst the treatment of extracapsular fractures may be evidence-based [2], surveys in the past have indicated a lack of agreement on the treatment of intracapsular fractures [3]. Controversy may apply particularly to the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures. Considerations in such cases include whether, with the risk of non-union and avascular necrosis, the femoral head should be replaced and if so, details of the most appropriate prosthetic replacement [4]. We conducted a survey of current practice across hospitals in the UK to investigate the degree of consensus in the treatment of patients with displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures. The degree of consensus was assessed by comparing how widely each of the surgical options were used, as indicated by the proportion of hospitals at which each operation was in routine practice.
Section snippets
Methods
The survey was conducted between March and July 2000. The middle grade orthopaedic surgeon on-call at every hospital in the UK taking acute orthopaedic admissions, identified by contacting all of the hospitals listed in the Medical Directory [5], was interviewed by telephone. Respondents were asked to report the usual treatment at their hospital for displaced intracapsular hip fractures, considering solely operative management of the fracture and assuming the absence of concomitant medical
Results
Information was obtained for each of the 223 hospitals identified, taking acute orthopaedic admissions. In the majority of hospitals a single method of treatment was used (78% for active patients, 73% for frail, Fig. 1). Two or more procedures were in routine practice for active patients at 22% of hospitals and for frail patients at 27%. Non-operative treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures was not routinely practised at any hospital.
The proportions of the 223 hospitals at which the
Discussion
Whilst this survey demonstrated some elements of agreement, there was also a lack of consensus in several important areas relating to the treatment of displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures.
Agreement was apparent in the widespread treatment of fractures in frail patients by unipolar hemiarthroplasty and the desire not to use a bipolar prostheses, internal fixation and total hip replacement in this group. There is some support for these policies. Treating fractures in frail patients by
References (41)
Primary total hip replacement for displaced subcapital femoral fractures
Injury
(1981)- et al.
Displaced subcapital fractures of the femur: a prospective randomized comparison of internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement
Injury
(1989) - et al.
Displaced intracapsular neck of femur fractures in mobile independent patients: total hip replacement or hemiarthroplasty?
Injury
(1999) The safety of acrylic bone cement
Injury
(1973)- et al.
Comparing the mortality and morbiditv of cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasties
Injury
(1993) - et al.
Prosthetic replacement for subcapital fractures of the femur: a comparative survey
Injury
(1971) - Fairbank J, Goldacre M, Mason A, Wilkinson E, Fletcher J, Amess M, Eastwood A, Cleary R, editors. Health outcome...
Managing an elderly patient with a fractured femur
Br. Med. J.
(2000)- et al.
Management of the intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur in 1990: a cause for concern?
J. Bone Jt. Surg. [Br.]
(1991) The management of intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur
Br. J. Bone Jt. Surg.
(2000)
Treatment of fractures of the femoral neck by replacement with the Thompson prostheses
Br. J Bone Jt. Surg.
Unipolar or bipolar prostheses for displaced intracapsular hip fracture in octogenarians
Br. J. Bone Jt. Surg.
Unipolar versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly
Clin. Orthop.
Subcapital fractures of the femur
Br. J. Bone Jt. Surg.
Knobs or screws? A prospective trial of prosthetic replacement against internal fixation of subcapital fractures
Br. J. Bone Jt. Surg.
Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for the displaced subcapital fracture of the femur
Br. J. Bone Jt. Surg.
Internal fixation versus primary prosthetic replacement in acute femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized clinical study
Br. J. Surg.
The displacaed femoral neck fracture
Clin. Orthop.
Cited by (57)
Changes in rehabilitation outcomes by new guidelines of Hong Kong Hospital Authority in implant choice for femoral neck fractures—Austin Moore versus cemented Exeter hemiarthroplasty
2018, Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and RehabilitationCitation Excerpt :AMA is now well known to be associated with thigh pain during walking, loosening and need for revision in a long-run (Figure 8).4,12–15,29 Yet AMA still remains in regular use worldwide, even in developed countries.10,11 Conventional cemented prosthesis, cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty, is a monobloc cemented collared design.
Management of young femoral neck fractures: Is there a consensus?
2015, InjuryCitation Excerpt :Our findings are consistent with the current controversies in the management of femoral neck fractures. Prior surveys have primarily examined treatment preferences for the management of elderly femoral neck fractures [5–8]. In a survey published in 2005, 298 international surgeons reported an overwhelming preference for arthroplasty over internal fixation when treating displaced elderly fractures; however, when considering younger patients (age < 60 years) multiple cancellous screws emerged as the preferred strategy, regardless of fracture displacement [7].
Comparative pooled survival and revision rate of austin-moore hip arthroplasty in published literature and arthroplasty register data
2013, Journal of ArthroplastyCitation Excerpt :The search of digitalized databases compromised studies published between 1960 and 2008 and performed by a manual review of the references quoted in the published articles. An extensive research of PubMed and MEDline revealed a total of 78 studies [2,3,7–57]. The inclusion criteria for consideration in the evaluation were the following: Unambiguous identification of the implant; Revision rate data either presented in the text or unambiguously calculable from the data contained; English- or German-language publication in a Medline-listed, peer-reviewed journal.