SuperPath approach is a recommendable option in frail patients with femoral neck fractures: a case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of intracapsular femoral neck fractures (FNFs) in the elderly is usually based on hip replacement, both total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Recently, several tissue-sparing approaches for hip arthroplasty had been described with promising results in terms of hospitalization length, blood loss and dislocation rate. The aim of the present study was to compare the blood loss and the transfusion rate in a cohort of patients with FNF treated using an HA through both the SuperPath (SP) and the traditional posterolateral (PL) approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from patients affected by FNFs between January 2018 and February 2020. All patients with intracapsular FNF treated with a single HA implant (Profemur L, MicroPort Orthopedics Inc., USA) via PL or SP approaches were included. Exclusion criteria were pathological fractures, polytrauma and preoperatively transfused patients. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included and analysed in the present study. 17 patients were classified in the SP group, and 18 in the PL one. The rate of antithrombotic therapy was higher in the SP group compared with the PL group [10 (58, 82%) vs 4 (22, 2%)]. While the two groups did not differ in terms of preoperative haemoglobin (Hb), 48 h postoperative Hb and Hb reduction, a significative difference was observed in terms of blood transfusion rate (1 SP vs 9 PL, p = 0.0072). CONCLUSIONS: The SuperPath approach in patients with FNF under antithrombotic therapy assures lower transfusion rate, potentially reducing complication rates and improving patients' outcomes.

Fractures around Trochanteric Nails: The "Vergilius Classification System".

INTRODUCTION: The fractures that occurred around trochanteric nails (perinail fractures, PNFs) are becoming a huge challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon. Although presenting some specific critical issues (i.e., patients' outcomes and treatment strategies), these fractures are commonly described within peri-implant ones and their treatment was based on periprosthetic fracture recommendations. The knowledge gap about PNFs leads us to convene a research group with the aim to propose a specific classification system to guide the orthopaedic surgeon in the management of these fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A steering committee, identified by two Italian associations of orthopaedic surgeons, conducted a comprehensive literature review on PNFs to identify the unmet needs about this topic. Subsequently, a panel of experts was involved in a consensus meeting proposing a specific classification system and formulated treatment statements for PNFs. Results and Discussion. The research group considered four PNF main characteristics for the classification proposal: (1) fracture localization, (2) fracture morphology, (3) fracture fragmentation, and (3) healing status of the previous fracture. An alphanumeric code was included to identify each characteristic, allowing to describe up to 54 categories of PNFs, using a 3- to 4-digit code. The proposal of the consensus-based classification reporting the most relevant aspects for PNF treatment might be a useful tool to guide the orthopaedic surgeon in the appropriate management of these fractures.