ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Cannulated screw fixation for femoral neck fractures is often limited by concerns of avascular necrosis (AVN) occurring, historically seen in 5-40% of fixed intracapsular fractures. This study aims to assess the outcomes, particularly the AVN rate, associated with current surgical techniques within our unit. METHODS: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study, manually searching operative records between July 14, 2014, and December 1, 2018, identifying patients with intracapsular fractured neck of femur fixed with cannulated screws, with a minimum of two years follow-up. Patient records and radiographs were reviewed for clinical and radiographic diagnoses of AVN, non-union, post-operative metalwork infection, and screw penetration of the head. Additionally, fracture pattern and displacement, screw configuration, reduction techniques, and adequacy of reduction were recorded, with radiographs independently analyzed by four orthopedic surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included; average age of 67 years (range 30-100). Forty-two patients (75%) sustained displaced fractures and 14 patients (25%) had undisplaced fractures. Two (4%) patients developed AVN, with no cases of non-union, post-operative metalwork infection or screw penetration of the head. Eight patients (14%) sustained a high-energy injury, though none of these patients developed AVN. All fractures required closed reduction; no open reductions performed. Twenty-seven (64%) of reductions were adequate. CONCLUSION: Our observed AVN rate is notably lower than the widely reported figures, even among a significant proportion of displaced fractures that were fixed. This study underscores that with adequate fixation, cannulated screws represent an excellent option for treating intracapsular neck of femur fractures, even in cases of displaced fracture patterns with imperfect reduction.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy has advantages over the traditional bilateral neck exploration for the surgical treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism. It requires accurate localisation of the parathyroid pathology prior to surgery. The best method of preoperative localisation in a district general hospital setting is not well understood. METHODS: All patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism from 2008 to 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Operative findings were correlated with radiological and histological results. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound, sestamibi scintigraphy and the two together were calculated for diagnostic precision and compared. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-four patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 81.5% had a histological diagnosis of a parathyroid adenoma. Ultrasound had higher sensitivity than sestamibi scintigraphy. Used together, ultrasound and sestamibi scintigraphy performed better than either ultrasound or sestamibi scintigraphy alone (P< 0.001). Twenty-two of 184 cases had no lesion located by either ultrasound or sestamibi scintigraphy preoperatively. Where neither ultrasound nor sestamibi scintigraphy located the lesion, additional computed tomography led to the excision of parathyroid pathology in one in ten patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of ultrasound and sestamibi scintigraphy provides the highest sensitivity of preoperative localisation. This approach led to a high success rate of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Where preoperative localisation is not achieved with ultrasound or sestamibi scintigraphy, computed tomography adds little additional benefit. In this setting other modalities of localisation such a selective venous sampling, intraoperative methylene blue or intraoperative parathyroid hormone levels could be considered.
