Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Curative efficacy of surgical procedures for older patients with femoral neck fracture: a network meta-analysis and systematic review

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 17, Article number: 127 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Femoral neck fractures have a higher incidence in older people with poor prognosis, inducing serious social problems. Common treatment methods include total hip arthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, double-screw fixation, multiple-screw fixation, and dynamic hip system.

Methods

We searched through four electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, for articles regarding femoral neck fractures, bone screw, and hip prosthesis published up to February 11, 2020. All included articles were used for quality evaluation and data extraction. Extracted data were expressed as odds ratios or weighted mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals. We conducted a network meta-analysis for Harris hip score, complications, 1-year mortality rate, reoperation rate, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of operation using STATA version 16.0 software.

Results

Twenty-two randomized controlled trials and nine cohort studies included in this study involved 3861 patients. Total hip arthroplasty significantly improved the postoperative function of patients with femoral neck fractures. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of the Harris hip score for more than 1 year after total hip arthroplasty was 98.2.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in mortality among different treatment groups. Total hip arthroplasty can provide satisfactory outcomes in hip joint function, and double-screw fixation results in the lowest intraoperative risk. In general, total hip arthroplasty results in a lower incidence of adverse events and is especially recommended for patients with femoral neck fractures. This article has been retrospectively registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) on November 27, 2020. Registration number: INPLASY2020110123.

Introduction

Femoral neck fractures occur below the femoral head and above the base of the femoral neck due to direct or indirect violent force. These fractures generally occur in older adults. Severe complications include femoral head necrosis and fracture nonunion, which seriously affect daily living and health. With an aging population worldwide, this disease has become a serious social problem, and by 2050, it is estimated that 63 million patients will have suffered a hip fracture [1, 2].

Increasing concern has been focused on improving patient postoperative survival rate and quality of life after femoral neck fractures. Indeed, special consideration must be given to improving patient hip function, postoperative complications, and reoperation rate when choosing a treatment method for femoral neck fractures. Such methods commonly include bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), and internal fixation.

Internal fixation is a widely used method worldwide. Numerous studies have demonstrated that internal fixation results in a higher complication rate and surgical failure rate [3, 4]. Some studies have pointed out that the internal fixation failure rate or reoperation rate in elderly patients is 7–30%. [5]. However, compared with arthroplasty, internal fixation has the advantages of less blood loss, shorter operation time, and lower implant cost. For elderly patients, lower bleeding volume and shorter operation time mean lower intraoperative risk. In recent years, with the development of material science, many scholars have found the potential value of internal fixation. [6]. Some work has confirmed the reliability of internal fixation with special materials for fracture fixation [7, 8].Compared with internal fixation, arthroplasty (BHA or THA) effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative complications and reoperation rates. Today, unipolar arthroplasty is generally deprecated as it causes severe damage to the acetabulum. Therefore, we included only publications regarding bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) in this analysis. Contrasted with THA, BHA has the advantages of a shorter operation time, less blood loss, fewer technical requirements, less economic burden, and lower dislocation rate [4, 6]. Some studies assert that BHA is preferred for older patients with low activity levels or cognitive impairment. However, for patients with high activity levels, BHA has a high risk of complications related to posterior acetabular erosion and reoperation [7, 8]. An artificial hip joint consists of an artificial acetabulum and an artificial femoral head. Patients undergoing THA tend to achieve better hip function, less acetabular erosion, and a lower revision rate [12]. Generally, THA is recommended for older patients with acetabular disease [13]. THA has potential limitations in highly active patients. An increase in the wear of the prosthetic head and pads may lead to aseptic loosening, and revision surgery is required accordingly, leading to an increase in the reoperation rate. Therefore, for patients with a healthy acetabulum, BHA is preferred because of reduced surgical trauma and lower surgical cost.

Numerous meta-analyses and systematic reviews have reported pairwise comparisons between THA and HA, between internal fixation and HA, and between types of internal fixations. However, there is limited evidence from available meta-analyses. Traditional meta-analysis methods cannot thoroughly compare all treatment strategies described in the existing studies. Therefore, the emerging network meta-analysis method is considered for use in this meta-analysis [12, 13]. Jonathan et al. [12] revealed that arthroplasty (THA and HA) has the lowest revision rate among THA, HA, screw fixation, steel plate fixation, and treatments for unthreaded cervical osteosynthesis. In this study, the surgical revision rate was the only outcome indicator. Zhang et al. [13] conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to rank five surgical procedures in terms of reoperation, mortality, dislocation, and infection. However, we considered various outcome indicators in this meta-analysis, except for surgical procedures involved in different internal fixations.

We conducted a network meta-analysis of all relevant random evidence and considered several prognostic indicators such as Harris hip score (HHS), complication rate, 1-year mortality rate, reoperation rate, intraoperative blood loss, and operation duration. We also fully discussed and ranked the existing treatment methods for femoral neck fractures, including THA, BHA, double-screw internal fixation, multiple-screw internal fixation, and DHS (dynamic hip screws). Therefore, this study presents comprehensive recommendations for the clinical treatment of femoral neck fractures.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines.Please see PRISMA checklist in Additional file 1. We searched four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, for relevant articles published through February 11, 2020 using the search terms “femoral neck fracture,” “bone screw,” “bone nail,” and “bone plate,” “hip prosthesis,” “THA,” and “hip replacement.” Paper retrieval was performed in PubMed applying the following string: (((((((((((((((((((((((Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip[Title/Abstract] OR (("arthroplasty, replacement"[MeSH Terms] OR ("arthroplasty"[All Fields] AND "replacement"[All Fields]) OR "replacement arthroplasty"[All Fields] OR ("arthroplasties"[All Fields] AND "replacement"[All Fields]) OR "arthroplasties, replacement"[All Fields]) AND Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR (("arthroplasty"[MeSH Terms] OR "arthroplasty"[All Fields]) AND Hip Replacement[Title/Abstract])) OR Hip Prosthesis Implantation[Title/Abstract]) OR Hip Prosthesis Implantations[Title/Abstract]) OR (("embryo implantation"[MeSH Terms] OR ("embryo"[All Fields] AND "implantation"[All Fields]) OR "embryo implantation"[All Fields] OR "implantation"[All Fields]) AND Hip Prosthesis[Title/Abstract])) OR (Implantations[All Fields] AND Hip Prosthesis[Title/Abstract])) OR (("prosthesis implantation"[MeSH Terms] OR ("prosthesis"[All Fields] AND "implantation"[All Fields]) OR "prosthesis implantation"[All Fields]) AND Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR (("prosthesis implantation"[MeSH Terms] OR ("prosthesis"[All Fields] AND "implantation"[All Fields]) OR "prosthesis implantation"[All Fields] OR ("prosthesis"[All Fields] AND "implantations"[All Fields]) OR "prosthesis implantations"[All Fields]) AND Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR Hip Replacement Arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) OR (("arthroplasty, replacement"[MeSH Terms] OR ("arthroplasty"[All Fields] AND "replacement"[All Fields]) OR "replacement arthroplasty"[All Fields] OR ("replacement"[All Fields] AND "arthroplasties"[All Fields]) OR "replacement arthroplasties"[All Fields]) AND Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR (("replantation"[MeSH Terms] OR "replantation"[All Fields] OR "replacement"[All Fields]) AND Arthroplasty, Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR (("arthroplasty"[MeSH Terms] OR "arthroplasty"[All Fields] OR "arthroplasties"[All Fields]) AND Hip Replacement[Title/Abstract])) OR Hip Replacement Arthroplasties[Title/Abstract]) OR (("arthroplasty, replacement, hip"[MeSH Terms] OR ("arthroplasty"[All Fields] AND "replacement"[All Fields] AND "hip"[All Fields]) OR "hip replacement arthroplasty"[All Fields] OR ("hip"[All Fields] AND "replacement"[All Fields]) OR "hip replacement"[All Fields]) AND Total[Title/Abstract])) OR (("replantation"[MeSH Terms] OR "replantation"[All Fields] OR "replacement"[All Fields]) AND Total Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR (("arthroplasty, replacement, hip"[MeSH Terms] OR ("arthroplasty"[All Fields] AND "replacement"[All Fields] AND "hip"[All Fields]) OR "hip replacement arthroplasty"[All Fields] OR ("hip"[All Fields] AND "replacements"[All Fields]) OR "hip replacements"[All Fields]) AND Total[Title/Abstract])) OR (("replantation"[MeSH Terms] OR "replantation"[All Fields] OR "replacements"[All Fields]) AND Total Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR Total Hip Replacements[Title/Abstract]) OR Total Hip Replacement[Title/Abstract]) OR (((((((Hip Prosthesis[Title/Abstract] OR Hip Prostheses[Title/Abstract]) OR (("prostheses and implants"[MeSH Terms] OR ("prostheses"[All Fields] AND "implants"[All Fields]) OR "prostheses and implants"[All Fields] OR "prostheses"[All Fields]) AND Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR (("prostheses and implants"[MeSH Terms] OR ("prostheses"[All Fields] AND "implants"[All Fields]) OR "prostheses and implants"[All Fields] OR "prosthesis"[All Fields]) AND Hip[Title/Abstract])) OR Femoral Head Prosthesis[Title/Abstract]) OR Femoral Head Prostheses[Title/Abstract]) OR (("prostheses and implants"[MeSH Terms] OR ("prostheses"[All Fields] AND "implants"[All Fields]) OR "prostheses and implants"[All Fields] OR "prostheses"[All Fields]) AND Femoral Head[Title/Abstract])) OR (("prostheses and implants"[MeSH Terms] OR ("prostheses"[All Fields] AND "implants"[All Fields]) OR "prostheses and implants"[All Fields] OR "prosthesis"[All Fields]) AND Femoral Head[Title/Abstract]))) OR (((Bone Plates[Title/Abstract] OR Bone Plate[Title/Abstract]) OR (("bone plates"[MeSH Terms] OR ("bone"[All Fields] AND "plates"[All Fields]) OR "bone plates"[All Fields] OR "plate"[All Fields]) AND Bone[Title/Abstract])) OR (Plates[All Fields] AND Bone[Title/Abstract]))) OR (((((((Bone Nails[Title/Abstract] OR (("bone nails"[MeSH Terms] OR ("bone"[All Fields] AND "nails"[All Fields]) OR "bone nails"[All Fields] OR "pins"[All Fields]) AND Bone[Title/Abstract])) OR (Pin[All Fields] AND Bone[Title/Abstract])) OR Bone Pin[Title/Abstract]) OR Bone Pins[Title/Abstract]) OR (("nails"[MeSH Terms] OR "nails"[All Fields]) AND Bone[Title/Abstract])) OR (("nails"[MeSH Terms] OR "nails"[All Fields] OR "nail"[All Fields]) AND Bone[Title/Abstract])) OR Bone Nail[Title/Abstract])) OR (((Bone Screws[Title/Abstract] OR Bone Screw[Title/Abstract]) OR (Screw,[All Fields] AND Bone[Title/Abstract])) OR (Screws[All Fields] AND Bone[Title/Abstract]))) AND (((Femoral Neck Fracture[Title/Abstract] OR Femur Neck Fracture[Title/Abstract]) OR Femoral Neck Fractures[Title/Abstract]) OR Femur Neck Fractures[Title/Abstract]). Additionally, all included articles were independently assessed by three researchers by reading the full text. Any disagreement was resolved by the fourth researcher.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) middle-aged and elderly patients with femoral neck fractures of Garden types I to IV; (2) at least one of five surgical methods described (THA, BHA, double-screw internal fixation, multiple-screw internal fixation, DHS); (3) at least one of six outcome indicators described (HHS score, complications, mortality within one year, reoperations, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of surgery); (4) randomized controlled trials or cohort studies; (5) written in the English language.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) basic studies about biomechanics and autopsy; (2) femoral neck fracture (age < 60 years); (3) patients with pathological femoral neck fractures; (4) non-surgical interventions; (4) valid data could not be extracted or converted; (5) case–control, paired analysis, conference abstracts, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis studies.

Outcome measures

This study included the prognostic indicators of patients with femoral neck fractures as outcome measures.

HHS

HHS is a widely used method to evaluate hip joint function. In this study, HHS was used to assess the arthroplasty effect in four aspects: pain, function, deformity, and mobility. A higher score indicated a better hip joint function.

Surgical complications

Postoperative complications associated with femoral neck fractures commonly include fixation failure, nonunion, osteonecrosis, infection, and nerve paralysis. The incidence of postoperative complications is a powerful indicator for evaluating the effect of surgery.

Reoperation

Because of artificial joint wear, screw dislocation, or serious complications, reoperation may be required in some patients with femoral neck fractures. Reoperation indicates a failure of the initial operation and is an important indicator of the quality of the operation.

Mortality

The mortality was calculated by counting the number of deaths within 12 months after surgery.

Blood loss

Intraoperative blood loss (mL) was statistically counted. Generally, the intraoperative blood loss is proportional to the risk of death.

Operation time

Operation time (min) was statistically counted. Generally, the operation time is proportional to the risk of surgical failure.

Additionally, related factors such as surgical approach, prosthesis model, and demographic data were recorded for further discussion.

Data extraction and management

Three researchers independently extracted data from all the included studies according to a standard data extraction format. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with another researcher. In some cases, the standard deviation (SD) was not available. Attempts were made to contact corresponding authors in such cases, but no response was available. Thus, for these cases, we estimated the range or median, or used the method described in the Cochrane Intervention Manual Systematic Evaluation Manual to convert data and estimate the SD from the confidence interval (CI) [16].

Statistical analysis

For the comparison of therapeutic efficacy, binary data and continuous data were expressed as odds ratio or weighted mean difference, with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity was defined as the variability of research results. The significance level was set at P = 0.1. Where there was heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used.

Additionally, we used inconsistency factors to test the consistency of the closed loop and used the node-splitting method to evaluate the local inconsistency. In the “Results” section, the ranking probability of each intervention was expressed through a cumulative probability ranking graph, where the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value was an index to summarize the cumulative ranking probability corresponding to the area under the curve of the probability graph, which is between 0 and 1. Higher values indicate greater therapeutic efficacy. All intervention measures were ranked based on the SUCRA value or the area under the curve, and the intervention measures were ranked. The 95% CI estimates and hypothesis test results of each variable are listed in the forest plots. RevMan 5.3 software was used to evaluate the publication bias of the included studies. In STATA version 16.0 Microsoft Windows software, we conducted a comprehensive network meta-analysis using the statistical software package Network and statistical package mvmeta.

Results

Search results

A flowchart of the study selection in the present meta-analysis is shown in Fig. 1. The reasons for excluding trials or publications were documented. A total of 12,766 potential related studies were identified and screened for retrieval (Fig. 1). Finally, among 31 studies (67 arms), 3861 treated patients with femoral neck fractures were included in this meta-analysis. The main characteristics of the included trials are listed in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the network model comparing THA, BHA, double-screw internal fixation, multiple-screw internal fixation, and DHS surgical methods for repairing femoral neck fractures. (The thickness of the lines represents the number of studies; the blue spots represent the number of patients).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of selected trials
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Direct comparisons in the network model. The thickness of the lines represents the number of studies; The size of the spots represent the number of patients (BHA = bipolar hemiarthroplasty; DHS = dynamic hip screw; THA = total hip arthroplasty)

Full size image

Primary results of the network meta-analysis

HHS score within six months after surgery

Estimates of the therapeutic efficacy by HHS score are shown in Fig. 3a. In general, the HHS value of THA within six months was higher than that of other groups, but most comparison results did not reach statistical significance. Based on SUCRA method, the six-month HHS values for all surgical interventions, ranked from high to low, were as follows: THA, BHA, double-screw fixation, multiple-screw fixation, and dynamic hip screw (Table 2).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Final results of the network meta-analysis

Full size image
Table 2 Treatment measures ranked by SUCRA method
Full size table

The Z test was performed to test the inconsistency. No loop indicated the possibility of inconsistency (Fig. 4a).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Inconsistency in the closed loops

Full size image

HHS score within 1 year after surgery

Figure 3b demonstrates the estimated impact of different interventions on HHS within one year. The HHS value of THA within one year after surgery was higher than that of other groups, but the results of most comparisons were not significantly different, and no loop indicated the possibility of inconsistency (Fig. 4b).

The one-year HHS values for all the surgical interventions ranked from high to low were as follows: THA, BHA, double-screw fixation, multiple-screw fixation, and dynamic hip screw (Table 2).

HHS score over 1 year after surgery

As demonstrated in Fig. 3c, the HHS value of THA over 1 year after surgery was higher than that of other groups. The > 1-year HHS values for all the surgical interventions ranked from high to low were as follows: THA, BHA, double-screw fixation, multiple-screw fixation, and DHS (Table 2). There were potential inconsistencies in the loop of BHA, multiple-screw fixation, and THA (P = 0.013) resulting from a large difference in the follow-up times described in the included studies (Fig. 4c).

Secondary results of the network meta-analysis

Main results of complications

Figure 3d indicates the estimated impact of different interventions on complications. There were some significant differences in complications associated with all the five surgical interventions for femoral neck fractures. Based on these results, the complication rates ranked from low to high were as follows: THA, BHA, double-screw fixation, DHS, and multiple-screw fixation (Table 2). The inconsistency in the closed loop was evaluated with the inconsistency factors (Fig. 4d), and no loop showed inconsistency. In particular, considering all cases in the included literature, the incidence of complications after three kinds of internal fixation was about 25.4%.

Main results of reoperation rate

There were some significant differences in the reoperation rate after five surgical procedures for femoral neck fractures (Fig. 3e). The rate of reoperation ranked from low to high was as follows: THA, BHA, DHS, multiple-screw fixation, and double-screw fixation (Table 2). The inconsistency factor was used to evaluate the inconsistency in the closed loop, and no loop indicated the possibility of inconsistency (Fig. 4e).

Main results of deaths

Overall, there was no significant difference between groups (Fig. 3f), so the mortality of different interventions could not be ranked. The inconsistency factor was used to evaluate the inconsistency in the closed loop, and there was no loop, indicating the possibility of inconsistency (Fig. 4f).

Main results of operation time

Figure 3g demonstrates the estimated impact of different interventions on the operation time. The operation time from short to long, as ranked by the SUCRA method, was as follows: double-screw fixation, multiple-screw fixation, DHS, BHA, and THA (Table 2). The inconsistency factor was used to evaluate the inconsistency in the closed loop, and no loop indicated the possibility of inconsistency (Fig. 4g).

Main results of intraoperative blood loss

Figure 3h shows the estimated impact of different interventions on intraoperative blood loss. The intraoperative blood loss ranked via the SUCRA method from low to high was as follows: double-screw fixation, DHS, multiple-screw fixation, BHA, and THA (Table 2). The inconsistency in the closed loop was evaluated using the inconsistency factors (Fig. 4h).

Discussion

The choice of treatment methods for femoral neck fractures remains controversial. Here, we conducted a network meta-analysis of current relevant literature and considered as many outcome indicators as possible to discuss and sort the existing treatments for femoral neck fractures from all aspects, giving comprehensive recommendations to provide a basis for clinical decision-making.

For relatively healthy elderly patients with femoral neck fractures, the postoperative hip joint function is related to the quality of daily life after surgery, which is an important consideration in choosing proper surgical procedures. HHS is a commonly used index to evaluate the postoperative function of patients with femoral neck fractures. Postoperative HHS has been statistically significant in many meta-analyses [3, 4, 11]. In a study by Gao et al. [51], the HHS of patients undergoing joint replacement was generally higher than that of patients treated with internal fixations, which is consistent with the meta-analysis of Burgers et al. [52]. However, their studies only made a short follow-up comparison, which was not comprehensive. However, there was no significant difference between HHS scores after joint replacement and internal fixation under long-term follow-up [52].In this study, the three intervals for the follow-up examinations were short-term (within six months), mid-term (within 1 year), and long-term (more than 1 year). There was no significant difference in HHS between THA and other surgical procedures in the short-term follow-up examination, except for double-screw fixation. In the mid-term follow-up examination, the HHS score of BHA group was not significantly better than that of other internal fixation methods. In a comparison of internal fixation methods, Watson showed that multiple-screw fixation was significantly better upon a 1-year follow-up examination because the screw fixation was less invasive, the size of three small screw heads around the greater trochanter was smaller, and a larger dynamic hip system could cause fascia lata stimulation. In this paper, the results showed that there was no significant difference between double screw, multi-screw and DHS in HHS.A prospective study by Blomfeldt et al. [53] comparing HA and THA indicated a better functional outcome in THA during a 1-year follow-up examination. In the present study, we found no significant differences in THA and BHA at the short- and mid-term follow-up examinations, but THA was significantly better than BHA in the long-term follow-up examination.

Common complications of joint replacement surgery include periprosthetic fractures, aseptic loosening, and hip dislocation. Nonunion and ischemic osteonecrosis are two common complications of internal fixations. A meta-analysis [54] showed no statistical difference in deep infection and subsequent ipsilateral fractures between joint replacement and internal fixation at mid- and long-term follow-up examinations. In general, the incidence of postoperative complications of internal fixation is higher than that of arthroplasty, which is about 25.4%. Parker and Blundell [55] conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing different internal fixation methods for femoral neck fractures and did not find significant differences between different implants. Additionally, arthroplasty is usually associated with the risk of long-term complications, such as periprosthetic fractures and aseptic loosening [22]. Boukebous[40] demonstrated that THA, in contrast to BHA, is more suitable for weaker patients suffering from femoral neck fractures because of a lower incidence of postoperative complications, and this is consistent with the conclusion of our study. Jettoo et al. [35], in their retrospective study, reported that the avascular necrosis rate after sliding screw plate fixation was 3.2 times higher than that after multiple cancellous bone screw fixation. However, our study indicated that the overall postoperative complication rate of DHS was less than that of two-screw fixation, and there was no significant difference among other internal fixations.

Chammout et al. [58,59,60] supported the conclusion that internal fixations cause a greater reoperation rate. In the meta-analysis by Jin Jiang et al. [52], the percentages of patients undergoing reoperation during the mid- and long-term follow-up examinations were 6.5% (62/865) and 14.3% (69/483) in the joint replacement group, and 39.8% (336/844) and 43.8% (234/534) in the internal fixation group, respectively. Similar results were observed in our meta-analysis. Wang et al. [61] showed that, compared with THA, HA resulted in more reoperations, especially during long-term follow-up, attributed to acetabular erosion that generally occurred in the patient population in the fourth year after surgery. The present study indicated no significant difference in the rate of reoperation between BHA and THA, and BHA was significantly better than other surgical procedures. This indicates that BHA has similar potential to THA in reducing the risk of reoperation. Parker [55] conducted a meta-analysis that compared various internal fixation methods in 1998. They found that, compared with the reoperation rate, the complication rate is more suitable as an outcome indicator for comparisons between internal fixation methods. These results are consistent with those of our study, wherein no significant difference was found in the rate of reoperation between double screws, multiple screws, and DHS.

Blomfeldt et al. [62, 63] found that during THA, intraoperative blood loss and operation time were significantly increased compared with other surgical procedures. The present meta-analysis also indicated that the three types of internal fixations took less operation time and resulted in less blood loss than BHA and THA. However, Liodakis et al. [64] believed that more blood loss (100–150 mL) during THA did not increase the rate of general complications or mortality. Studies [65] have also shown that patients are more concerned about the risk of postoperative complications than the risk of intraoperative bleeding.

Bhandari et al. [66] demonstrated that, compared with artificial joint replacement, internal fixation had a significantly higher risk of death during the short-term follow-up. In our network meta-analysis, we found no difference in the long-term mortality of THA, HA, double-screw fixation, multiple-screw fixation, and DHS.

This study has some potential limitations. We did not discuss confounding factors involving surgical approaches and implant materials that may influence different results. As previously reported, surgical approaches for hip arthroplasty usually include direct anterior (Smith-Peterson), anterolateral (Watson-Jones), lateral (Hardinge), posterior (Moore), or posterolateral approaches [38, 61,62,63,64]. For internal fixation, the choice of internal fixation devices, the initial displacement, the degree of reduction, and the position of the internal fixation are of great significance to the healing of fractures.

Conclusion

Generally, THA has a good performance for postoperative hip function, complication rate, and revision rate, but it has a longer operation time and results in a greater loss of blood during surgery. Therefore, patients should choose an appropriate surgical procedure based on their conditions to increase the chance of longer life and a higher quality of life.

Availability of data and materials

All the data and materials were included within the manuscript.

Abbreviations

HA:

Hemiarthroplasty

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

DHS:

Dynamic hip screws

BHA:

Bipolar hemiarthroplasty

HHS:

Harris hip score

SD:

Standard deviation

CI:

Confidence interval

OR:

Odds ratio

MD:

Mean difference

SUCRA:

Surface under the cumulative ranking curve

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

References

  1. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ. Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int. 1992;2:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA. World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997;7:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yong TM, Austin DC, Molloy IB, et al. Screw fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for nondisplaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2020;34:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck: a meta-analysis. JBJS. 2003;85:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dolatowski FC, Frihagen F, Bartels S, et al. Screw fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for nondisplaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. JBJS. 2019;101:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mandal S, Kishore V, Bose M, et al. In vitro and in vivo degradability, biocompatibility and antimicrobial characteristics of Cu added iron-manganese alloy. J Mater Sci Technol. 2021;84:159–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Qu X, Yang H, Jia B, et al. Zinc alloy-based bone internal fixation screw with antibacterial and anti-osteolytic properties. Bioact Mater. 2021;6(12):4607–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chow DHK, Wang J, Wan P, et al. Biodegradable magnesium pins enhanced the healing of transverse patellar fracture in rabbits. Bioact Mater. 2021;6(11):4176–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhandari M, et al. Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: an international survey. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2005;87:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goh EL, Lerner RG, et al. Complications following hip fracture: results from the world hip trauma evaluation cohort study. Inj Int J Care Inj. 2020;51:6.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lagergren J, Möller M, Rogmark C. Displaced femoral neck fractures in patients 60–69 years old-treatment and patient reported outcomes in a register cohort. Injury. 2020;51:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu Y, Chen X, Zhang P, et al. Comparing total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture in the active elderly over 75 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15:1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Florschutz AV, Langford JR, Haidukewych GJ, Koval KJ. Femoral neck fractures: current management. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zi-Sheng A, et al. Hemiarthroplasty vs primary total hip arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in the elderly: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mosseri J, et al. Meta-analysis of a complex network of non-pharmacological interventions: the example of femoral neck fracture. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang B, et al. Interventions for treating displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a Bayesian network metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shah SWA, et al. Cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty better than austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for treatment of fracture neck of femur—is this true? Pak J Med Health Sci. 2019;13:3.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fang C, et al. Is it time to phase out the Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty? A propensity score matched case control comparison versus cemented hemiarthroplasty. BioMed Res Int. 2016.

  19. Xiaowen H, Pu WK, Xin C. How to estimate the mean and standard deviation based on the median, range and sample size when conducting meta-analysis. Chin J Evid Based Med. 2015;4:15.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johansson T, et al. Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wani IH, et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty versus internal fixation in displaced fracture of femoral neck in sexa and septuagenarians. J Orthop Traumatol. 2014;15:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chammout, Ghazi Khalil, et al. Total hip replacement versus open reduction and internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized long-term follow-up study. JBJS. 2012; 94:21.

  24. Tidermark J, et al. Internal fixation compared with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg. 2003;85:3.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bachrach L, Margareta R, et al. Nutritional status and functional capacity after femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized one-year follow up study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2000;12:5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Neander G, et al. Bone and muscle mass after femoral neck fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liehu C, et al. Closed reduction and internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fracture. Chin J Traumatol. 2014;17:2.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kang JS, et al. Osteosynthesis versus endoprosthesis for the treatment of femoral neck fracture in Asian elderly patients. BMC Musculosk Disord. 2016;17:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Frihagen F, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE. Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335:7632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dolatowski FC, et al. Screw fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for nondisplaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. JBJS. 2019;101:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Söreide O, Mölster A, Raugstad TS. Internal fixation versus primary prosthetic replacement in acute femoral neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Br J Surg. 1979;66:1.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rödén M, Schön M, Fredin H. Treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized minimum 5-year follow-up study of screws and bipolar hemiprostheses in 100 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lu Q, et al. Hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation in super aged patients with undisplaced femoral neck fractures: a 5-year follow up of randomized controlled trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Vugt AB, Oosterwijk WM, Goris RJA. Osteosynthesis versus endoprosthesis in the treatment of unstable intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1993;113:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Keating JF, et al. Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty: treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. JBJS. 2006;88:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Watson A, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing dynamic hip screw and screw fixation for undisplaced subcapital hip fractures. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee Y, et al. Internal fixation of undisplaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a retrospective comparison of fixation methods. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2008;64:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jettoo P, James P. Dynamic hip screw fixation versus multiple screw fixation for intracapsular hip fracture. J Orthop Surg. 2016;24:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen C, et al. Dynamic hip system blade versus cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017;51:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Siavashi B, et al. A comparative study between multiple cannulated screws and dynamic hip screw for fixation of femoral neck fracture in adults. Int Orthop. 2015;39:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Madsen F, et al. Fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a comparison between sliding screw plate and four cancellous bone screws. Acta Orthop Scand. 1987;58:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lagerby M, Asplund S, Ringqvist I. 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;69:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Boukebous B, et al. Comparison of dual mobility total hip arthroplasty and bipolar arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: a retrospective case-control study of 199 hips. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mariconda M, et al. Ambulatory ability and personal independence after hemiarthroplasty and total arthroplasty for intracapsular hip fracture: a prospective comparative study. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lin C-C, Yang C-C, Tzai-Chiu Yu. Comparison of mid-term survivorship and clinical outcomes between bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty with cementless stem: a multicenter retrospective study. Orthop Surg. 2019;11:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Baker RP, et al. Total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck: a randomized, controlled trial. JBJS. 2006;88:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim YT, et al. Dual mobility hip arthroplasty provides better outcomes compared to hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a retrospective comparative clinical study. Int Orthop. 2019;42:6.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shukla R, et al. Functional outcome of bipolar prosthesis versus total hip replacement in the treatment of femoral neck fracture in elderly patients. Malays Orthop J. 2017;11:1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Cho M, et al. Results after total hip arthroplasty with a large head and bipolar arthroplasty in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sonaje JC, et al. Comparison of functional outcome of bipolar hip arthroplasty and total hip replacement in displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly in a developing country: a 2year prospective study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Blomfeldt R, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg. 2007;89:2.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Cadossi M, et al. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty with a novel polycarbonate–urethane acetabular component for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck: a randomised controlled trial in elderly patients. Bone Jt J. 2013;95:5.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Barışhan FC, et al. Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. J Int Med Res. 2018;46:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gao H, Liu Z, Xing D, Gong M. Which is the best alternative for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jiang J, Yang C, Lin Q, et al. Does arthroplasty provide better outcomes than internal fixation at mid-and long-term followup? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Eriksson K, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg. 2007;89:2.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Linde F, Andersen E, Hvass I, Madsen F, Pallesen R. Avascular femoral head necrosis following fracture fixation. Injury. 1986;17:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Parker MJ, Blundell C. Choice of implant for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures: meta-analysis of 25 randomised trials including 4,925 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Robinson CM, Saran D, Annan IH. Intracapsular hip fractures: results of management adopting a treatment protocol. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;302:83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Dai Z, Li Y, Jiang D. Meta-analysis comparing arthroplasty with internal fixation for displaced femoral neck fracture in the elderly. J Surg Res. 2011;165:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Chammout GK, Mukka SS, Carlsson T, Neander GF, Stark AW, Skoldenberg OG. Total hip replacement versus open reduction and internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized long-term follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2012;94:21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Leonardsson O, Sernbo I, Carlsson A, Akesson K, Rogmark C. Long-term follow-up of replacement compared with internal fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures: results at ten years in a randomised study of 450 patients. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2010;92:3.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ravikumar KJ, Marsh G. Internal fixation versus hemiarthro-plasty versus total hip arthroplasty for displaced subcapital fractures of femur: 13 year results of a prospective randomised study. Injury. 2000;31:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang F, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Ma C, Feng X. Comparison of bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in thehealthy elderly: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculosk Disord. 2015;16:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Eriksson K, Söderqvist A, Ponzer S, Tidermark J. A randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2007;89:160–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Sharma V, Awasthi B, Kumar K, Kohli N, Katoch P. Outcome analysis of hemiarthroplasty vs total hip replacement in displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:5.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Liodakis E, Antoniou J, Zukor DJ, Huk OL, Epure LM, Bergeron SG. Major complications and transfusion rates after hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, Putnam W, Flowerdew GJ, Brownell BF, Nagpal S, Cox JL. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001;323:7323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P, Obremskey W, Koval KJ, Nork S, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH, Guyatt GH. Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Johansson T. Internal fixation compared with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures: a minimum fifteen-year follow-up study of a previously reported randomized trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2014;96:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stoen RO, Lofthus CM, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE, Frihagen F. Randomized trial of hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: no differences at 6 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

There is no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Mathematics, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, People’s Republic of China

    Lanxin Cui & Shishun Zhao

  2. Department of Hand Surgery, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, People’s Republic of China

    Heng Tian & Wenlai Guo

  3. Orthopaedic Medical Center, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, 218 Ziqiang Street, Changchun, 130041, Jilin Province, People’s Republic of China

    Xiaoming Dong

Authors
  1. Lanxin Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shishun Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heng Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wenlai Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaoming Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XD initiated the study. LC was responsible for collecting data and writing manuscripts. SZ was responsible for guiding data analysis. WG and HT explained the results of data analysis. All authors commented on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoming Dong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

PRISMA checklist.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cui, L., Zhao, S., Tian, H. et al. Curative efficacy of surgical procedures for older patients with femoral neck fracture: a network meta-analysis and systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 17, 127 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02914-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02914-y

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X