Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

The management of the valgus-impacted neck of femur fracture (AO/OTA 31-B1) remains contentious. The objective of this study was to determine whether operative intervention is cost-effective.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review using electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Ebsco, Scholar) identifying studies published in the English language concerning valgus-impacted neck of femur fractures until June 2022. Additional studies were identified through hand searches of major orthopaedic journals, and bibliographies of major orthopaedic textbooks. MeSH terms (hip fracture and femoral neck fracture) and keywords (undisplaced, valgus-impacted, valgus, subcapital, Garden) connected by the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” were used to identify studies. 2 reviewers independently extracted the data using standardised forms and recording spreadsheet. Methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument. Meta-analysis was undertaken. Outcome measures were rate of displacement, avascular necrosis, non-union, mortality and requirement of further operative intervention. A cost utility analysis was then conducted to compare the 2 groups on the basis of the cost of initial treatment and the potential requirement of secondary intervention to hemiarthroplasty.

Results:

47 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis data demonstrated a significant difference in the displacement rate of 22.8% and 2.8% between the nonoperative and internal fixation groups respectively (p = 0.05). The overall incidence of further operative intervention for each group was 23% and 10% respectively. There was no significant difference with respect to avascular necrosis, mortality or union rates. The cost utility analysis revealed nonoperative management to be approximately 60% more costly than initial internal fixation when the costs of subsequent surgery were included.

Conclusions:

This meta-analysis of the existing literature concludes that whilst nonoperative management is possible for valgus impacted neck of femur fractures, it is associated with higher complication rates and greater expense than management by internal fixation.

Keywords

NOF neck of femur fracture valgus-impacted meta-analysis

Introduction

Neck of femur fractures (NOF#) represent 1 of the most common orthopaedic injuries requiring operative intervention with an estimated 1.5 million sustained worldwide annually.¹ Valgus impacted subcapital NOF# (AO/OTA 31-B1) represent approximately 15–20% of these injuries.² This fracture has classically been thought to have inherent stability due to its vector of impaction in the coronal plane.^2,3 This has led some authors to recommend nonoperative management for this fracture pattern, ranging from prolonged bed rest to early weightbearing as tolerated.^2,4–8 However, since Smith-Petersen first popularised fixation of valgus-impacted NOF# in 1931, operative management has become increasingly utilised.^9–11

In support of this trend, multiple publications have reported a high complication rate associated with nonoperative management of this condition, particularly fracture displacement and symptomatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head necessitating conversion to hip arthroplasty.^5,12–17 However, operative management has also been associated with a range of complications, including perioperative mortality, periprosthetic fracture, metalware failure and joint penetration.^18–22 Thus some authors continue to advocate conservative management of this fracture.^2,23 Unfortunately, there have been few systematic reviews and, to the best of our knowledge, no randomised control trials directly comparing current operative and non-operative management of this specific fracture pattern.^24,25

Another facet worth understanding is the economic cost of this injury. Internationally, as our population continues to age and the annual rate of NOF# continue to rise, the economic burden of this injury needs to be addressed.^26
–29 While there are a number of studies reporting the cost effectiveness of various operative treatments for NOF#, there are none comparing conservative with operative fixation in-situ of valgus-impacted subcapital NOF#.^30–33

The aim of this study is therefore to critically review the existing literature to firstly assess the risk profile of operative versus nonoperative management of valgus impacted subcapital NOF# in patients >60 years of age. Secondly to assess the failure rates of these 2 modalities as defined as conversion to hip arthroplasty. Lastly to compare the economic costs of these 2 approaches.

Methods

Search criteria

This analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.³⁴

The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies reporting on valgus impacted subcapital NOF#. A 3-step search strategy was utilised.

Firstly, a comprehensive search of all publications in the electronic databases up to June 2022 was independently conducted by two investigators (HV and DK) using Medline, Embase, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. The MeSH terms (hip fracture and femoral neck fracture) and keywords (undisplaced, valgus-impacted, valgus, subcapital, Garden) connected by the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” were used to identify all possible studies. The identified articles were then reviewed for keywords contained in the title, abstract, and the index terms used to describe the study subject. Secondly, a search using all identified keywords and index terms was undertaken across all of the included databases. Finally, a manual search was conducted of the reference lists of identified articles and relevant reviews for additional studies.

Inclusion criteria

All studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies reporting on the outcomes of undisplaced, valgus-impacted neck of femur fractures managed with either operative fixation in-situ (regardless of implant selection), or conservative management with permitted early weightbearing; (2) randomised control trials, non-randomised control trials, observational studies, or registry studies: (3) report on at least the primary outcome measure detailed below, ⩾2 secondary outcomes of interest; (4) minimum follow-up of 6 months; (5) studies including patients aged >60 years only; (6) studies published in the English language.

Exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded if they had any of the following characteristics: (1) reviews, abstracts, editorials, expert opinions, or letters; (2) duplicate data; (3) biomechanical studies; (4) unclear methodology or ambiguous outcome reporting; (5) studies with overlapping data of displaced subcapital neck of femur fractures (6) primary treatment with arthroplasty.

Article assessment

All papers selected for inclusion were assessed independently by 2 reviewers (HV and DK) for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardised critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI).^35,36 Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (CF).

Outcomes of interest

The primary outcome measure for this meta-analysis was fracture displacement in the conservatively managed group, and either fracture displacement or implant failure in the operatively managed group. Displacement was defined as any reported disimpaction of the femoral head from the femoral neck. Any reported progressive impaction was not considered as displacement. Implant failure was defined as perforation of the implant into the hip joint, implant cut out from the femoral head, or periprosthetic fracture. Prominent metalware was not considered as implant failure. Secondary outcome measures were; union, avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head, mortality, length of hospital stay and the need for subsequent surgery for any cause in either treatment group.

The economic component of this review assessed the cost utility of treatment by utilising studies that have a published cost itemisation, and undertaken cost analyses of each treatment option as well as the cost of secondary intervention.^32,33 The cost analysis was extrapolated for the outcomes found from the meta-analysis to determine the relative cost utility of each treatment option based on the sum total of attributable itemised costs for the primary intervention, and subsequently the costs incurred per group from need for subsequent surgery for fracture displacement with conversion to hemiarthroplasty.

Data extraction

2 reviewers (HV and DK) independently extracted quantitative data from all eligible studies using a standardized data recording spreadsheet. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer (CF). The data of interest included the following categories: (1) study characteristics such as study type, year of publication, cohort size, age, follow-up duration and numbers lost to follow up; (2) treatment information including operative or conservative management with early weightbearing and hospital stay; (3) numbers of patients with the primary outcome of fracture displacement in the conservatively managed group and either displacement or implant failure in the operatively managed group; (4) numbers of patients with secondary outcomes including avascular necrosis, non-union, mortality, and secondary intervention with “revision” surgery for any cause in either treatment group. In addition, time to displacement, ongoing pain and postoperative infection were documented if reported.

Statistical analysis

For each included study, means and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for incidence of outcomes, along with risk ratios (RR) and numbers needed to treat or harm (NNT/NNH). Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with use of both the chi-square (χ²) test and the I-squared (I²) test. Statistical heterogeneity was considered significant when p < 0.10 for the χ² test or I² > 50%. Random and fixed effects models were used to ensure that these studies represented a random sample of all potentially available studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the strength and robustness of pooled results by sequential omission of individual studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot of the most frequently reported outcome. All reported p-values were 2-sided and p < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.2.10 software (Cochrane Collaboration, UK). All numerical analyses were reported to 2 decimal points.

Results

Included studies

A total of 2349 studies were identified in the initial database search. After incorporation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria 46 studies met the required criteria (Table 1). This included 38 observational studies, 3 randomised control trials (RCTs), 4 non-randomised control trials and 1 registry study. The randomised control trials included in the meta-analysis were ones comparing different implants for fixation in-situ. There were no randomised control trials comparing conservative with operative management identified in the literature search. Of the 46 articles, 29 reported only on the outcomes of operative fixation in-situ and 12 reported only on conservative management. 5 studies directly compared patients treated operatively and conservatively, none of which stated randomisation as part of their study design.

Table 1.

Studies identified.

Study	Type	Management	Mean Follow up	Cohort Size	Displacement/ Implant failure	Non-union	AVN	Revision Surgery	Mortality
Hansen⁶ (1978)	Obs	Conservative	6 months	42	8	0	3	10	16%
	RCT	Operative	2 years	27	0	0	6	4	22%
Rogmark¹⁸ (2009)	Obs	Operative	2.5 years	224	1	12	10	34	22%
Cserháti¹⁶ (1996)	Obs	Conservative	2 years	122	24	1	5	22	14%
Cserháti¹⁶ (1996)	Obs	Operative	2 years	125	1	0	10	10	10%
Buord¹⁵ (2010)	Obs	Conservative	1.5 years	57	19	0	1	18	14%
Raaymakers³⁷ (1991)	Obs	Conservative	3 years	170	24	0	9	21	16%
Jensen⁸ (1983)	Obs	Conservative	2 years	85	9	0	3	0	2%
Otremski⁵ (1990)	Obs	Conservative	3 years	123	11	0	9	0	UK
Tanaka⁷ (2002)	Obs	Conservative	20 months	38	23	15	0	0	UK
Raaymakers² (2002)	Obs	Conservative	2 years	319	95	0	18	109	19%
Shuqiang¹⁷ (2006)	Obs	Conservative	1 year	115	48	0	0	48	UK
Bentley³⁸ (1968)	Obs	Conservative	2 years	43	7	1	5	6	17%
Bentley³⁸ (1968)	Obs	Operative	2 years	23	8	0	2	0	17%
Bjørgul²¹ (2007)	RCT	Operative	3 years	225	9	16	10	42	22%
Verheyen¹² (2005)	Obs	Conservative	6 months	105	48	0	0	48	UK
Chen³⁹ (2005)	Obs	Operative	2 years	40	2	2	4	6	8%
Chiu²² (1996)	Obs	Operative	2 years	318	9	15	18	35	21%
Conn²⁴ (2004)	Obs	Operative	1 year	414	6	24	15	29	21%
Gjertsen⁴⁰ (2011)	Reg	Operative	1 year	5205	436	0	0	436	UK
Lawrence⁴¹ (2011)	Obs	Operative	1 year	211	0	32	16	UK	UK
Lee⁴² (2004)	Obs	Operative	2 years	104	0	6	4	2	7%
Lee⁴³ (2008)	Obs	Operative	1 year	102	3	1	10	6	12%
Murphy⁴⁴ (2013)	Obs	Operative	3 years	358	25	20	9	53	UK
Nilsson⁴⁵ (1988)	Obs	Operative	5 years	129	8	8	10	8	21%
Yoon⁴⁶ (2012)	Obs	Operative	2 years	31	0	2	3	7	UK
Strömqvist⁴⁷ (1992)	Obs	Operative	2 years	175	0	5	4	6	29%
Strömqvist⁴⁸ (1987)	Obs	Operative	2 years	85	0	1	2	3	25%
	Obs	Operative	2 years	100	4	4	3	7	27%
Parker²⁶ (2008)	Obs	Operative	1 year	346	2	38	13	50	19%
Bunata⁴⁹ (1973)	Obs	Operative	2 years	53	0	0	0	0	UK
Bunata⁴⁹ (1973)	Obs	Conservative	2 years	60	7	7	0	0	UK
Flatmark⁴ (1962)	Obs	Conservative	1 year	51	4	1	10	0	27%
Doran⁵⁰ (1989)	Obs	Operative	2 years	58	2	0	4	21	UK
Barnes⁵¹ (1976)	Obs	Operative	3 years	295	0	2	9	0	5%
Lagerby⁵² (1998)	RCT	Operative	1 year	75	0	1	3	4	20%
Cobb⁵³ (1986)	Obs	Operative	2 years	43	0	0	3	4	9%
Bedat¹⁴ (1997)	Obs	Conservative	1 year	124	52	1	4	49	5%
Bedat¹⁴ (1997)	Obs	Operative	1 year	54	0	2	1	0	0%
Parker⁵⁴ (2013)	Obs	Operative	1 year	112	0	3	5	11	17%
Zlowodzki¹⁹ (2005)	Obs	Operative	6 months	57	11	UK	UK	UK	UK
Palm⁵⁵ (2009)	Obs	Operative	1 year	113	18	4	4	31	UK
Hilleboe⁵⁶ (1970)	Obs	Conservative	1 year	37	4	0	3	4	UK
Levi⁵⁷ (1995)	Obs	Operative	1 year	252	UK	25	0	UK	10%
Tidermark⁵⁸ (2002)	Obs	Operative	2 years	24	1	UK	1	2	33%
Hui⁵⁹ (1994)	Obs	Operative	6 months	57	10	0	1	11	21%
Lapidus⁶⁰ (2013)	Obs	Operative	3.5 years	382	7	25	20	72	21%
Stappaerts⁶¹ (1987)	Obs	Operative	3 years	33	0	1	2	UK	UK
Clement⁶² (2013)	Obs	Operative	1 year	120	21	UK	UK	21	19%
Shin⁶³ (2021)	Obs	Conservative	Unknown	55	15	15	0	UK	UK
Goodnough⁶⁴ (2021)	Obs	Operative	13 months	97	15			15	1.5%
Goodnough⁶⁴ (2021)	Obs	Conservative	6.5 months	28	10	10	0		9.1%

AVN, avascular necrosis; UK, unknown

All studies were published between the years of 1962 and 2021. Studies reporting on conservative management outcomes were published in years ranging from 1962 to 2006 and operative management from 1968 to 2021. The cohort size of each study ranged from 24 to 5405. Mean follow-up ranged from 6 months to 5 years (Table 1).

Outcomes

Displacement

44 of the included studies reported on displacement. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly lower mean displacement rate of 2.88% in the operatively managed group (CI, 1.58– 4.56) compared to 22.88% in the conservatively managed group (CI, 16.15–30.40) (p = 0.05). This equates to a risk ratio of 0.13 and a number needed to treat of 5 (Table 2).

Table 2.

Pooled analysis of outcomes of conservative versus operative treatments.

		Mean %	lower 95	upper 95	Difference	NNT/NNH	Risk Ratio	p-value
AVN	Conservative	4.45	2.94	6.27	0.30	331	1.07	0.90
AVN	Operative	4.76	2.87	7.08	0.30	331	1.07	0.90
Mortality	Conservative	11.82	7.56	16.88	4.06	25	1.34	0.76
Mortality	Operative	15.88	12.51	19.56	4.06	25	1.34	0.76
Displacement	Conservative	24.70	31.46	18.52	–21.55	–5	0.13	0.04
Displacement	Operative	3.15	1.76	4.92	–21.55	–5	0.13	0.04
Revision	Conservative	23.20	14.63	33.06	–13.47	–7	0.42	0.49
Revision	Operative	9.73	7.50	12.22	–13.47	–7	0.42	0.49
Nonunion	Conservative	2.30	0.60	5.06	1.15	87	1.50	0.28
Nonunion	Operative	3.45	1.79	5.61	1.15	87	1.50	0.28

NNT/NNH, numbers needed to treat or harm; AVN, avascular necrosis.

Significant heterogeneity existed between studies reporting on both types of management with respect to displacement rates with I² of 89% for each group (Figures 1 and 2). However, variability between studies was less marked with operative fixation in-situ compared to conservative management suggesting a more predictable outcome in respect to fracture displacement (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Forrest plot of studies reporting fracture displacement after initial nonoperative management.

Figure 2.

Forrest plot of studies reporting fracture displacement after initial operative management.

Union

46 studies reported on the union rate. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups; 84% (CI, 80.4–87.6) operatively and 77% (CI, 67.95–85.25) nonoperatively (p = 0.95).

Avascular necrosis (AVN)

40 studies reported on the occurrence of AVN of the femoral head. Pooled estimates revealed a similar AVN rate of 4.76% (CI, 2.87–7.08) in the operative group and 5.1% (CI, 3.6–6.85) in the conservative group (p = 0.89).

Revision surgery

38 of the included studies reported on subsequent revision surgery for any cause following initial fixation in-situ or conservative management. The proportion of patients requiring subsequent surgery was 9.55% (CI, 7.3–12.06) in the operative group and 23.2% (CI, 14.63–33.06) in the conservative group. This was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.48). There was inconsistent reporting amongst studies on the various indications for revision surgery, therefore further subgroup analysis was not possible. There was significant heterogeneity found between studies for both groups, with an I² of 90% and 93% for operative and nonoperative groups respectively.

Mortality

29 of the included studies reported on mortality rate. The mean 1-year mortality rate was 16.79% (CI, 13.53–20.32) in the operative group and 12.51% (CI, 7.98–17.87) in the conservatively managed group. This was not statistically significant (p = 0.76).

Length of hospital stay

12 studies reported on the length of hospital stay, 5 of which reported on hospital stay for those patients managed nonoperatively. A significant difference with respect to mean length of hospital stay between the 2 groups was found, with an average hospital stay of 22 days in the nonoperative group and 12 days in the operative group (p < 0.01).

Cost analysis

An itemised cost analysis was carried out to compare the two groups on anticipated average costs of in hospital management. The published itemised costs (in Euro) were attained from a paper by Frihagen and colleagues in 2010 and applied to each group to calculate the mean total cost per patient based on treatments received and mean length of stay from the pooled estimates (Table 3). Further calculations were carried out on the cost per group to treat of the complication of fracture displacement with the assumption that they would require a subsequent hemiarthroplasty.

Table 3.

Cost-analysis of operative versus operative management of valgus impacted neck of femur fractures.

Initial costs and follow-up costs	Cost (E)	Units	Conservative	Operative	Secondary intervention (Conservative)	Secondary intervention (Operative)
			Cost
Transportation
Ambulance	€ 222.00	Transfer	€ 222.00	€ 222.00	€ 222.00	€ 222.00
Emergency Department assessment	€ 356.00	Presentation	€ 356.00	€ 356.00	€ 356.00	€ 356.00
Equipment (in surgery)
Internal fixation	€ 310.00	Operation	€ 0.00	€ 310.00	€ 0.00	€ 0.00
Hemiarthroplasty	€ 1,282.00	Operation	€ 0.00	€ 0.00	€ 1282.00	€ 1282.00
Removal of screws	€ 171.00	Operation	€ 0.00	€ 0.00	€ 0.00	€ 171.00
Bipolar hemi-cup (Hastings)	€ 652.00	Operation	€ 0.00	€ 0.00	€ 652.00	€ 652.00
Anesthesia costs
Fixed anaesthesia costs	€ 87.00	Operation	€ 0.00	€ 87.00	€ 87.00	€ 87.00
Variable anaesthesia costs	€ 63.00	Hour	€ 0.00	€ 63.00	€ 126.00	€ 126.00
Personnel costs (in surgery)
Orthopedic surgeon	€ 51.00	Hour	€ 0.00	€ 51.00	€ 102.00	€ 102.00
Orthopedic registrar	€ 39.00	Hour	€ 0.00	€ 39.00	€ 78.00	€ 78.00
Anaesthetic registrar	€ 39.00	Hour	€ 0.00	€ 39.00	€ 78.00	€ 78.00
Theatre nurse	€ 27.00	Hour	€ 0.00	€ 54.00	€ 54.00	€ 54.00
Anaesthetic technician	€ 27.00	Hour	€ 0.00	€ 27.00	€ 54.00	€ 54.00
Postoperative costs	€ 69.00	Hour	€ 0.00	€ 138.00	€ 138.00	€ 138.00
Inpatient days
Overhead costs	€ 378.00	Day	€ 8316.00	€ 4536.00	€ 1890.00	€ 1890.00
Direct attention	€ 201.00	Day	€ 4422.00	€ 2412.00	€ 1005.00	€ 1005.00
Common costs	€ 250.00	Day	€ 5,500.00	€ 3,000.00	€ 1,250.00	€ 1,250.00
Medication/blood transfusion
Cefalotin (Keflin)	€ 6.00	Dose	€ 0.00	€ 18.00	€ 18.00	€ 18.00
Dalteparin, LMWH (Fragmin)	€ 1.00	Dose	€ 42.00	€ 42.00	€ 42.00	€ 42.00
Oxycodone (Oxycontin)	€ 1.00	Dose	€ 14.00	€ 14.00	€ 14.00	€ 14.00
Codein/paracetamol (Pinex Forte)	€ 0.20	Dose	€ 33.60	€ 33.60	€ 33.60	€ 33.60
Lactulose	€ 0.10	Dose	€ 8.40	€ 8.40	€ 8.40	€ 8.40
Paracetamol	€ 0.10	Dose	€ 16.80	€ 16.80	€ 16.80	€ 16.80
Blood SAG	€ 143.00	units	€ 0.00	€ 0.00	€ 0.00	€ 0.00
Radiology
Radiology image (x-ray)	€ 56.00	Set	€ 336.00	€ 392.00	€ 224.00	€ 224.00
Laboratory
All labs	€ 87.00	Number	€ 87.00	€ 174.00	€ 174.00	€ 174.00
Other post op contact
Outpatient clinic	€ 173.00	Visit	€ 865.00	€ 865.00	€ 865.00	€ 865.00
Telephone contacts	€ 19.00	Call	€ 95.00	€ 95.00	€ 95.00	€ 95.00
Physiotherapy visit	€ 25.00	Hours	€ 150.00	€ 150.00	€ 150.00	€ 150.00
					Proportion revised in 1 Year
					0.232	0.0955
					Initial conservative	Initial operative
				Total cost	20,463.80	13,142.80
				Total cost + cost for revision	22,588.41	14,033.70

This cost analysis found a mean total cost per patient of €20,463.80 for those treated nonoperatively and €13,142.80 for those treated with fixation in-situ. A subsequent hemiarthroplasty for fracture displacement was factored in for each group, the cost per patient rose to €22,478.52 for those initially treated nonoperatively and €13,404.01 for those who underwent fixation in-situ (Table 3).

The principal contributor to cost was the direct and indirect costs of hospital stay, with the costs of surgery being a comparatively small 1-off cost, nearly equivalent to a single day in hospital.

Discussion

With health projections revealing our ageing population and increasing numbers of NOF# it is essential to determine the optimal management of valgus impacted subcapital neck of femur fractures. Currently debate remains within the literature as to whether operative or nonoperative management of this condition is optimal

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled data demonstrates that valgus-impacted NOF# have an 8-fold higher rate of displacement (22.88 vs. 2.88 p = 0.05) if treated non-operatively, but a number needed to treat to prevent displacement of 5. Thus, only considering displacement, one might suggest that 80% of patients who undergo fixation in-situ undergo an unnecessary operation. However, due to this fracture being intracapsular displacement not only carries the risk of symptomatic mal-union or non-union, but also the risk of AVN and symptomatic femoral head collapse necessitating hip arthroplasty.

Interestingly, the difference in displacement rate is demonstrated to be statistically significant, but its clinical significance remains dependent on how the risks of subsequent surgery are perceived. Subjectively most surgeons would consider fixation in-situ to be a relatively benign procedure with reliable outcomes in comparison to hip arthroplasty. Thus, most contemporary surgeons prefer to fix these fractures in-situ to ensure retention of the patient’s native femoral head rather than risk fracture displacement and subsequent hip arthroplasty. However, the contemporary practice is called into question by Støen et al.,⁶⁵ who demonstrated in an RCT that the clinical and functional outcomes of internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty are comparable at 6 years post displaced NOF#.⁶⁵

Certainly, the variability in displacement rate seen between the studies reporting on the outcomes of conservative management are far more marked than with fixation in-situ suggesting that conservative management offers a less predictable treatment outcome.

Apart from displacement, the union rates, AVN, revision surgery and mortality rates between the groups were not significantly different. It should be noted the difference in rate of revision surgery between the two groups was less marked than that of displacement. The precise indications for revision surgery were reported inconsistently amongst the analysed studies, and therefore, a more detailed analysis was not possible. We assume that the majority of the subsequent surgery undertaken in the conservative group was for displacement, which based on contemporary practice would be to proceed to arthroplasty rather than reduction and fixation. In the fixation group, some studies listed a range of indications for revision surgery including, screw migration into the joint, fracture displacement, periprosthetic fracture, subcutaneous metalware irritation, deep infection, and avascular necrosis. Each of these would require a different management approach, and may account for the marked heterogeneity between studies in outcome reporting. This also makes it difficult to account for in a cost analysis, as a subgroup analysis was not possible for the revision surgery outcome.

The most notable secondary finding was that the nonoperatively managed group had a significantly longer mean length of hospital stay. This would imply a longer period of being incapacitated and independent immobile, but curiously, this implied potential for prolonged immobility associated with nonoperative management does not appear to be associated with a higher mortality rate in this meta-analysis.

The prolonged hospital stay of nonoperatively managed NOF# has major implications at a population level with respect to the utilisation and allocation of resources. Given the ageing population, increasing demand for hospital beds and shortage of healthcare resources it would be untenable to advocate for conservative management if the difference in length of stay is considered. This is particularly true in developed nations where the costs of hospital stay often outweigh the itemized costs of a surgical procedure.

The cost analysis conducted in this meta-analysis applied internationally accepted itemised costs to each treatment group. This demonstrates that the length of hospital stay represents the largest financial component, with fixation in-situ amounting to little more than the equivalent of 1 day in hospital. Although the exact costs of treatment may vary between countries and institutions, the proportional difference in treatment cost between conservative and operative management is important. This cost analysis supports operative management of valgus-impacted NOF# even if the clinical risk profile is to be rationalized. Given the ever-rising costs associated with an ageing population there is a need to account for providing cost-effective healthcare and demonstrate fiscal responsibility at the level of a clinician.

This study is largely limited by paucity of high-level evidence, including the absence of randomised control trials. In addition the vast heterogeneity of the small number of comparative trials limit this meta-analysis. Similarly, the large chronological spread of studies presented in this meta-analysis may introduce bias with respect to the variance in length of hospital stay, with current practice promoting early discharge planning with multi-disciplinary inputs.

Furthermore, this study is unable to illicit pain scores and functional outcome measures or assess individual patient radiographs to ensure those fractures that displaced were indeed valgus impacted without a significant posterior angulation. This study also fails to assess the optimal fixation method as all fixation types were grouped into the same category of fixation in-situ.

A further limitation is that we were only able to assess the inpatient aspects to treatment. There is very little literature to demonstrate what level of care patients with a valgus-impacted NOF# require after hospital discharge and whether or not fixation has any impact on this. We are also unable to account for the wider societal non-financial costs with either treatment option.

These limitations highlight the low quality of evidence on which the current standard of practice is based and emphasise the importance of a well-designed randomised control trial to assess the optimal management of this common injury.

Despite these limitations, this study offers the highest current level of evidence for the management of valgus impacted subcapital NOF# and concludes that fixation in-situ is superior to conservative management with a lower rate of fracture displacement, a shorter length of hospital stay and a lower total projected cost of treatment.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Gary Hooper

Michael Wyatt

References

Sterling

RS.

Gender and race/ethnicity differences in hip fracture incidence, morbidity, mortality, and function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 1913–1918.

Raaymakers

EL.

The non-operative treatment of impacted femoral neck fractures. Injury 2002; 33(Suppl. 3): C8–14.

Colles

Fracture of the neck of the femur. In: Dublin hospital reports and communications in medicine and surgery. Vol. 2. Dublin: Hodges and McArthur, 1818, pp. 334–355.

Flatmark

Lone

The prognosis of abduction fractures of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1962; 44: 324–327.

Otremski

Katz

Dekel

, et al. Natural history of impacted subcapital femoral fractures and its relevance to treatment options. Injury 1990; 21: 379–381.

Hansen

Solgaard

Impacted fractures of the femoral neck treated by early mobilization and weight-bearing. Acta Orthop Scand 1978; 49: 180–185.

Tanaka

Seki

Tokimura

, et al. Conservative treatment of Garden stage I femoral neck fracture in elderly patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002; 122: 24–28.

Jensen

Høgh

Fractures of the femoral neck: a follow-up study after non-operative treatment of Garden’s stage 1 and 2 fractures. Injury 1983; 14: 339–342.

Smith-Petersen

Cave

Vangorder

GW.

Intracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur: treatment by internal fixation. Arch Surg 1931; 23: 715–759.

10.

Watson-Jones

Fractures of the neck of the femur. Br J Surg 1936; 23: 787–808.

11.

Garden

RS.

Low-angle fixation in fractures of the femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961; 43: 647–663.

12.

Verheyen

Smulders

van Walsum

AD.

High secondary displacement rate in the conservative treatment of impacted femoral neck fractures in 105 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125: 166–168.

13.

Koval

Zuckerman

JD.

Femoral neck fractures. In: Koval

Zuckerman

(eds) Hip fractures: a practical guide to management. New York, NY: Springer, 2000, pp.49–127.

14.

Bedat

Rossier

Peter

Garden I fractures of the femoral neck: conservative or surgical treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991; 79: 243.

15.

Buord

Flecher

Parratte

, et al. Garden I femoral neck fractures in patients 65 years old and older: is conservative functional treatment a viable option? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96: 228–234.

16.

Cserháti

Kazár

Manninger

, et al. Non-operative or operative treatment for undisplaced femoral neck fractures: a comparative study of 122 non-operative and 125 operatively treated cases. Injury 1996; 27: 583–588.

17.

Shuqiang

Kunzheng

Zhichao

, et al. Outcome of non-operative management in Garden I femoral neck fractures. Injury 2006; 37: 974–978.

18.

Rogmark

Flensburg

Fredin

Undisplaced femoral neck fractures—no problems? A consecutive study of 224 patients treated with internal fixation. Injury 2009; 40: 274–276.

19.

Zlowodzki

Weening

Petrisor

, et al. The value of washers in cannulated screw fixation of femoral neck fractures. J Trauma 2005; 59: 969–975.

20.

Loizou

Parker

MJ.

Avascular necrosis after internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures; a study of the outcome for 1023 patients. Injury 2009; 40: 1143–1146.

21.

Bjørgul

Reikerås

Outcome of undisplaced and moderately displaced femoral neck fractures. Acta Orthop 2007; 78: 498–504.

22.

Chiu

WH.

Undisplaced femoral neck fracture in the elderly. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1996; 115: 90–93.

23.

Taha

Audigé

Siegel

, et al. Factors predicting secondary displacement after non-operative treatment of undisplaced femoral neck fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135: 243–249.

24.

Conn

Parker

MJ.

Undisplaced intracapsular hip fractures: results of internal fixation in 375 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 421: 249–254.

25.

Handoll

Parker

MJ.

Conservative versus operative treatment for hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst 2008; 3: CD000337.

26.

Parker

White

Boyle

Fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for undisplaced intracapsular hip fractures. Injury 2008; 39: 791–795.

27.

Cooper

Campion

Melton

3rd . Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int 1992; 2: 285–289.

28.

Gullberg

Johnell

Kanis

JA.

World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 1997; 7: 407–413.

29.

Langley

Samaranayaka

Davie

, et al. Age, cohort and period effects on hip fracture incidence: analysis and predictions from New Zealand data 1974-2007. Osteoporos Int 2011; 22: 105–111.

30.

Sahota

Morgan

Moran

CG.

The direct cost of acute hip fracture care in care home residents in the UK. Osteoporos Int 2012; 23: 917–920.

31.

Zielinski

Bouwmans

Heetveld

, et al. The societal costs of femoral neck fracture patients treated with internal fixation. Osteoporos Int 2014; 25: 875–885.

32.

Waaler Bjørnelv

Frihagen

Madsen

, et al. Hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation with percutaneous cannulated screws as treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: cost-utility analysis performed alongside a randomized, controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 2012; 23: 1711–1719.

33.

Frihagen

Waaler

Madsen

, et al. The cost of hemiarthroplasty compared to that of internal fixation for femoral neck fractures. 2-year results involving 222 patients based on a randomized controlled trial. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 446–452.

34.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264–269, W64.

35.

The Joanna Briggs Institute protocols 2014, www.joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/jbc/...sr.../jbi-sr-protocolTemplate.docx (accessed 30 July 2014).

36.

The Joanna Briggs Institute SUMARI Reviewers manual 2014, http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual_2014-The-Systematic-Review-of-Prevalence-and-Incidence-Data_v2.pdf (2014, accessed 30 July 2014).

37.

Raaymakers

Marti

RK.

Non-operative treatment of impacted femoral neck fractures. A prospective study of 170 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991; 73: 950–954.

38.

Bentley

Impacted fractures of the neck of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1968; 50: 551–561.

39.

Chen

Tseng

, et al. Treatment of undisplaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. J Trauma 2005; 58: 1035–1039.

40.

Gjertsen

Fevang

Matre

, et al. Clinical outcome after undisplaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective comparison of 14,757 undisplaced and displaced fractures reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Acta Orthop 2011; 82: 268–274.

41.

Lawrence

Parker

MJ.

Complication rates relating to the degree of displacement of femoral neck fractures: a clinical study of 878 internally fixed intracapsular fractures. Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma 2011; 1: 1–6.

42.

Lee

Howe

Chang

HC.

Cancellous screw fixation for femoral neck fractures: one hundred and sixteen patients. Ann Acad Med Singap 2004; 33: 248–251.

43.

Lee

Chen

Tsuang

, et al. Internal fixation of undisplaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a retrospective comparison of fixation methods. J Trauma 2008; 64: 155–162.

44.

Murphy

Randell

Brennan

, et al. Treatment and displacement affect the reoperation rate for femoral neck fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 2691–2702.

45.

Nilsson

Strömqvist

Thorngren

KG.

Nailing of femoral neck fracture: clinical and sociologic 5-year follow-up of 510 consecutive hips. Acta Orthop Scand 1988; 59: 365–371.

46.

Yoon

Shin

Yoo

, et al. Progression of a fracture site impaction as a prognostic indicator of impacted femoral neck fracture treated with multiple pinning. Clin Orthop Surg 2012; 4: 66–71.

47.

Strömqvist

Nilsson

Thorngren

KG.

Femoral neck fracture fixation with hook-pins. 2-year results and learning curve in 626 prospective cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1992: 63: 282–287.

48.

Strömqvist

Hansson

Nilsson

, et al. Hook-pin fixation in femoral neck fractures. A two-year follow-up study of 300 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 218: 58–62.

49.

Bunata

Fahey

Drennan

DB.

Factors influencing stability and necrosis of impacted femoral neck fractures. JAMA 1973; 223: 41–44.

50.

Doran

Emery

Rushton

, et al. Hook-pin fixation of subcapital fractures of the femur: an atraumatic procedure? Injury 1989: 20: 368–370.

51.

Barnes

Brown

Garden

, et al. Subcapital fractures of the femur. A prospective review. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1976; 58: 2–24.

52.

Lagerby

Asplund

Ringqvist

Cannulated screws for fixation of femoral neck fractures: no difference between Uppsala screws and Richards screws in a randomized prospective study of 268 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69: 387–391.

53.

Cobb

Gibson

PH.

Screw fixation of subcapital fractures of the femur—a better method of treatment?

Injury 1986; 17: 259–264.

54.

Parker

Cawley

Palial

Internal fixation of int-racapsular fractures of the hip using a dynamic locking plate: two-year follow-up of 320 patients. Bone Joint J 2013; 95B: 1402–1405.

55.

Palm

Gosvig

Krasheninnikoff

, et al. A new measurement for posterior tilt predicts reoperation in undisplaced femoral neck fractures: 113 consecutive patients treated by internal fixation and followed for 1 year. Acta Orthop 2009; 80: 303–307.

56.

Hilleboe

Staple

Lansche

, et al. The non-operative treatment of impacted fractures of the femoral neck. South Med J 1970; 63: 1103.

57.

Levi

Early mortality after cervical hip fractures. Injury 1996; 27: 565–567.

58.

Tidermark

Zethraeus

Svensson

, et al. Quality of life related to fracture displacement among elderly patients with femoral neck fractures treated with internal fixation. J Orthop Trauma 2002; 16: 34–38.

59.

Hui

Anderson

Choudhry

, et al. Internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty for undisplaced fractures of the femoral neck in octogenarians. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76: 891–894.

60.

Lapidus

Charalampidis

Rundgren

, et al. Internal fixation of Garden I and II femoral neck fractures: posterior tilt did not influence the reoperation rate in 382 consecutive hips followed for a minimum of 5 years. J Orthop Trauma 2013; 27: 386–390.

61.

Stappaerts

Broos

PL.

Internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. A follow-up study of 118 cases. Acta Chir Belg 1987; 87: 247–251.

62.

Clement

Green

Murray

, et al. Undisplaced intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly: predicting fixation failure and mortality. A prospective study of 162 patients. J Orthop Sci 2013; 18: 578–585.

63.

Shin

Moon

, et al. Incidence and risk factors for failure of conservative treatment for valgus impacted femoral neck fractures in elderly patients with high-risk comorbidities–a bi-center retrospective observational study. Injury 2021; 52: 3463–3460.

64.

Goodnough

Wadhwa

Fithian

, et al. Is percutaneous screw fixation really superior to non-operative management after valgus-impacted femoral neck fracture: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2021; 31: 65–70.

65.

Støen

RØ

Lofthus

Nordsletten

, et al. Randomized trial of hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: no differences at 6 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 360–367.

Valgus-impacted subcapital neck of femur fractures: a systematic review,meta-analysis with cost analysis of fixation in-situ versus nonoperative management

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Search criteria

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Article assessment

Outcomes of interest

Data extraction

Statistical analysis

Results

Included studies

AVN, avascular necrosis; UK, unknown

Outcomes

Displacement

Union

Avascular necrosis (AVN)

Revision surgery

Mortality

Length of hospital stay

Cost analysis

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References