Imaging observation of percutaneous compression plate use in promoting femoral neck fracture healing

Objective To examine the imaging evidence of the use of percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) in promoting femoral neck fracture healing compared with cannulated screws (CS). Methods This retrospective study enrolled patients with femoral neck fractures undergoing internal fixation procedures. The patients were divided into a PCCP group and a CS group with imaging as the primary outcome and Harris hip score (HHS) as the secondary outcome. Results This study included 162 patients: 80 in the PCCP group and 82 in the CS group. There were no significant differences between the patients in their preoperative baseline characteristics. Patient follow-up ranged from 24–56 months (mean 30.7 months). Differences in reduction quality, screw slipping, neck shortening and avascular necrosis (AVN) were not significant between the two groups. There were significant differences between the treatment groups in bone absorption, nonunion, healing time, screw withdrawal and fixation failure in favour of the PCCP group. Postoperative HHS at 6 and 12 months were significantly better for the PCCP group than the CS group, but the differences were not significant at 24 months and last follow-up. Conclusion Stable internal fixation with dynamic compression was the key to PCCP promoting femoral neck fracture healing.

Is There Evidence that the Percutaneous Compression Plate Method of Internal Fixation for Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures Leads to Better Intraoperative and Postoperative Outcomes than the Dynamic Hip Screw?

Background: Hip fractures are common, expensive and lead to considerable morbidity and mortality. An ageing population in the United Kingdom means that rates of this injury are increasing, making them a pressing public health issue. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that extramedullary implants are used over intramedullary nails to fix intertrochanteric fractures, which make up half of all hip fractures. However, there is currently no guidance on the preferred type of extramedullary device whether this be the commonly used dynamic hip screw (DHS) or another newer device. It has been suggested that a percutaneous compression plate (PCCP) can reduce complications and improve functional outcome compared with the traditional DHS. Review Question: In patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures, is the PCCP more effective than the DHS in terms of relevant intraoperative and postoperative outcomes such as blood loss, implant failure, and mortality? Literature Search: We first searched for relevant information in the NICE Clinical Guideline on Hip Fracture Management (CG124), then National Health Service (NHS) evidence for Clinical Knowledge Summaries, then the Cochrane library for systematic reviews. Finally, we conducted an electronic search of the PubMed database. Review Findings: We selected five systematic reviews and eight primary studies for review. The main findings were that the PCCP was associated with significantly less blood loss, fewer blood transfusions, and shorter operating times compared with the DHS. However, no significant differences were found in postoperative pain, orthopaedic performance, and mortality rates between the two methods. There was no comparison of cost-effectiveness between the two methods. Conclusions: The PCCP is superior to the DHS in terms of intraoperative blood loss and, potentially, non-orthopaedic postoperative complications such as deep vein thrombosis and nosocomial infection. However, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the two methods. Current studies on this topic have several methodological issues and some are of relatively poor quality. Further higher quality research and cost-effectiveness are necessary to further evaluate the efficacy of these methods.