Submitted:
16 January 2024
Posted:
17 January 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Patients and Methods
2.1. Patient Selection, Data Collection, Inclusion, and Exclusion Criteria
2.2. Surgical Technique and Post Operative Protocol


2.3. Follow Up and Endpoints
2.4. IRB Approval
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
References
- Ly, T. V and Swiontkowski, M. F. (2008) ‘Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures in Young Adults’, JBJS, 90(10). Available online: https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Fulltext/2008/10000/Treatment_of_Femoral_Neck_Fractures_in_Young.25.aspx.
- Husby, T. et al. (1989) ‘Early loss of fixation of femoral neck fractures. Comparison of three devices in 244 cases.’, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica, 60(1), pp. 69–72. [CrossRef]
- Gjertsen, J.-E. et al. (2010) ‘Internal screw fixation compared with bipolar hemiarthroplasty for treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.’, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 92(3), pp. 619–628. [CrossRef]
- Parker, M. J. and Stedtfeld, H.-W. (2010) ‘Internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures with a dynamic locking plate: initial experience and results for 83 patients treated with a new implant.’, Injury, 41(4), pp. 348–351. [CrossRef]
- Parker, M. J. et al. (2002) ‘Hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. A randomised trial of 455 patients.’, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume, 84(8), pp. 1150–1155. [CrossRef]
- Gurusamy, K., Parker, M. J. and Rowlands, T. K. (2005) ‘The complications of displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip: the effect of screw positioning and angulation on fracture healing.’, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume, 87(5), pp. 632–634. [CrossRef]
- Majernícek, M. et al. (2009) ‘[Osteosynthesis of intracapsular femoral neck fractures by dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation]’, Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca, 76(4), pp. 319–325. Available online: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19755057.
- Widhalm, H. K. et al. (2019) ‘A Comparison of Dynamic Hip Screw and Two Cannulated Screws in the Treatment of Undisplaced Intracapsular Neck Fractures—Two-Year Follow-Up of 453 Patients’, Journal of Clinical Medicine. [CrossRef]
- Duffin, M. and Pilson, H. T. (2019) ‘Technologies for Young Femoral Neck Fracture Fixation’, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 33. Available online: https://journals.lww.com/jorthotrauma/Fulltext/2019/01001/Technologies_for_Young_Femoral_Neck_Fracture.5.aspx.
- Hoshino, C. M. et al. (2016) ‘Fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults: Fixed-angle devices or Pauwel screws?’, Injury, 47(8), pp. 1676–1684. [CrossRef]
- Li, T. and Zhang, Q.-S. (2018) ‘Is dynamic locking plate superior than other implants for intracapsular hip fracture: A meta-analysis’, Medicine, 97(47), p. e13001. [CrossRef]
- Yin, H., Pan, Z. and Jiang, H. (2018) ‘Is dynamic locking plate(Targon FN) a better choice for treating of intracapsular hip fracture? A meta-analysis’, International Journal of Surgery, 52, pp. 30–34. [CrossRef]
- Thein, R. Thein, R. et al. (2014) ‘Osteosynthesis of Unstable Intracapsular Femoral Neck Fracture by Dynamic Locking Plate or Screw Fixation: Early Results’, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 28(2). Available online: https://journals.lww.com/jorthotrauma/Fulltext/2014/02000/Osteosynthesis_of_Unstable_Intracapsular_Femoral.2.aspx.
- Warschawski, Y. et al. (2016) ‘Dynamic locking plate vs. simple cannulated screws for nondisplaced intracapsular hip fracture: A comparative study’, Injury, 47(2), pp. 424–427. [CrossRef]
- Griffin, X. L. et al. (2014) ‘The Targon Femoral Neck hip screw versus cannulated screws for internal fixation of intracapsular fractures of the hip’, The Bone & Joint Journal, 96-B(5), pp. 652–657. [CrossRef]
- Eschler, A. et al. (2014) ‘Angular stable multiple screw fixation (Targon FN) versus standard SHS for the fixation of femoral neck fractures’, Injury, 45, pp. S76–S80. [CrossRef]
- Marsh, J. L. et al. (2007) ‘Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee.’, Journal of orthopaedic trauma, 21(10 Suppl), pp. S1-133. [CrossRef]
- Lowe, J. A. et al. (2010) ‘Optimal Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures According to Patient’s Physiologic Age: An Evidence-Based Review’, Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 41(2), pp. 157–166. [CrossRef]
- Takigawa, N. et al. (2016) ‘Clinical results of surgical treatment for femoral neck fractures with the Targon® FN’, Injury, 47, pp. S44–S48. [CrossRef]
- Osarumwense, D. et al. (2015) ‘The Targon FN System for the Management of Intracapsular Neck of Femur Fractures: Minimum 2-Year Experience and Outcome in an Independent Hospital’, cios, 7(1), pp. 22–28. [CrossRef]
- Biber, R., Brem, M. and Bail, H. J. (2014) ‘Targon® Femoral Neck for femoral-neck fracture fixation: lessons learnt from a series of one hundred and thirty five consecutive cases’, International Orthopaedics, 38(3), pp. 595–599. [CrossRef]
- Parker, M. J. and Gurusamy, K. (2005) ‘Modern methods of treating hip fractures.’, Disability and rehabilitation, 27(18–19), pp. 1045–1051. [CrossRef]
- Parker, M. J. and Blundell, C. (1998) ‘Choice of implant for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. Meta-analysis of 25 randomised trials including 4,925 patients.’, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica, 69(2), pp. 138–143. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z. et al. (2018) ‘Comparison of early complications between the use of a cannulated screw locking plate and multiple cancellous screws in the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in young adults: a randomized controlled clinical trial’, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 13(1), p. 201. [CrossRef]
| Pinning procedure (n=47) | Targon FN (n=50) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | |||
| Gender – n (%) | |||
| Male | 35 (74.46%) | 24 (48%) | 0.007 |
| Female | 12 (25.53%) | 26 (52%) | |
| Pre-surgery walking ability – no walking aids – n (%) | 44 (93.61%) | 49 (98%) | 0.27 |
| Garden 4 fractures out of total number of displaced fractures – n (%) | 30 (63.82%) | 24 (48%) | 0.11 |
| Age at surgery – mean | 56.3 | 54.2 | 0.63 |
| Age group at surgery – n (%) | |||
| Age < 50 | 9 (19.14%) | 14 (28%) | 0.3 |
| Age > 50 | 38 (80.85%) | 36 (72%) | |
| Follow-up duration (months) - mean | 79.6 | 82.75 | 0.96 |
| Pinning procedure (n=47) | Targon FN (n=50) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes – n (%) | |||
| Avascular necrosis | 3 (6.38%) | 7 (14%) | 0.36 |
| Nonunion | 17 (36.17%) | 2 (4%) | <0.001 |
| Periprosthetic fracture | 1 (2.12%) | 1 (2%) | 0.96 |
| Limb shortening | 2 (4.25%) | 1 (2%) | 0.52 |
| Total major complications | 23 (48.93%) | 11 (22%) | 0.005 |
| Revision surgery (THR and hardware removals) | 13 (27.65%) | 9 (18%) | 0.25 |
| THR out of revision surgery | 13 (27.65%) | 8 (16%) | 0.16 |
| Pinning procedure (n=47) | Targon FN (n=50) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chronic pain – n (%) | |||
| No pain | 3 (6.38%) | 7 (14%) | 0.21 |
| Mild pain | 9 (19.14%) | 16 (32%) | |
| Moderate pain | 2 (4.25%) | 7 (14%) | |
| Severe pain | 1 (2.12%) | 5 (10%) | |
| Extreme pain | 0 (0%) | 3 (6%) | |
| Ambulation ability – n (%) | |||
| No problem | 7 (14.89%) | 30 (60%) | 0.07 |
| Slight problem | 4 (8.51%) | 5 (10%) | |
| Moderate problem | 2 (4.25%) | 1 (2%) | |
| Severe problem | 0 (0%) | 1 (2%) | |
| No ability to walk | 1 (2.12%) | 1 (2%) | |
| Ambulation assistive device – n (%) | |||
| No walking aids | 7 (14.89%) | 29 (58%) | 0.07 |
| One aid | 3 (6.38%) | 8 (16%) | |
| Two aids | 1 (2.12%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Walking frame | 1 (2.12%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Wheelchair | 2 (4.25%) | 1 (2%) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).