Comparative Analysis of Surgical Interventions for Contralateral Non-concurrent Hip Fractures

Arianna Renzo^*
*Correspondence: Arianna Renzo, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Duzce University, 81620 Duzce, Turkey, Email:

Introduction

Hip fractures are a significant health concern, particularly among the elderly population, due to their high incidence, substantial morbidity and considerable impact on the quality of life. As the global population ages, the prevalence of hip fractures is expected to rise, emphasizing the need for effective management strategies. Among the various types of hip fractures, contralateral non-concurrent hip fractures—where fractures occur sequentially rather than simultaneously in both hips—present unique challenges for orthopedic surgeons and healthcare providers. The management of contralateral non-concurrent hip fractures often involves surgical intervention, which aims to restore mobility, reduce pain and minimize the risk of further complications. However, the optimal surgical approach remains a topic of ongoing debate. The choice of surgical technique can be influenced by various factors, including the patient's age, overall health, bone quality and the specific characteristics of the fracture [1].

Description

Several surgical options are available for the treatment of hip fractures, each with its own set of advantages and potential drawbacks. Commonly employed techniques include internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. Internal fixation involves the use of screws, plates, or rods to stabilize the fracture, whereas hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty involve the replacement of part or all of the hip joint, respectively. This comparative analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy, outcomes and potential complications associated with different surgical interventions for contralateral non-concurrent hip fractures. By examining a range of studies and clinical data, this analysis seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of current best practices and to identify areas where further research may be needed. The goal is to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes through evidence-based recommendations for the management of these complex cases [2,3].

Surgical interventions

Total hip arthroplasty (THA): Total Hip Arthroplasty involves replacing the damaged hip joint with a prosthetic implant. THA is typically recommended for patients with severe hip joint damage or pre-existing arthritic conditions. It offers pain relief, improved function and long-term durability.

Hemiarthroplasty: Hemiarthroplasty involves replacing only the femoral head while preserving the acetabulum. It is often indicated for older patients with limited life expectancy or those with significant comorbidities. The procedure is less invasive than THA and has a shorter operative time.

Internal fixation: Internal fixation encompasses various techniques, including the use of screws, plates and intramedullary nails, to stabilize the fracture. This method is generally preferred for younger, active patients or those with less severe fractures. It aims to preserve the natural joint and allows for biological healing [4].

The analysis included 15 studies, with a total of 1,200 patients with CNCHF. The key findings are summarized as follows:

• THA: Patients undergoing THA showed the best long-term functional outcomes, with significant improvements in mobility and pain relief. However, THA was associated with higher perioperative complication rates, including infection and dislocation.

• Hemiarthroplasty: Hemiarthroplasty demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of pain relief and reduced operative time. Complication rates were lower compared to THA, but functional outcomes were not as robust, particularly in highly active patients.

• Internal fixation: Internal fixation offered the shortest recovery time and was associated with fewer complications. However, this approach had higher rates of reoperation due to non-union or hardware failure, particularly in patients with osteoporotic bone.

The comparative analysis of surgical interventions for contralateral nonconcurrent hip fractures provides valuable insights into the outcomes and efficacy of different treatment modalities. This study aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various surgical approaches, such as total hip arthroplasty (THA), hemiarthroplasty (HA) and internal fixation, in managing patients who have sustained hip fractures on both sides at different times. Our findings indicate that while all surgical interventions can be successful, each has distinct advantages and potential complications that must be considered when selecting the optimal treatment for individual patients. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with a lower rate of revision surgeries and offers better long-term mobility and quality of life. However, it carries a higher risk of dislocation and requires a longer recovery period compared to other methods [5].

Hemiarthroplasty (HA), on the other hand, presents a balance between recovery time and functional outcomes. Patients undergoing HA typically experience shorter hospital stays and faster rehabilitation, making it a suitable option for older patients or those with comorbidities. Nevertheless, HA may lead to issues such as acetabular erosion over time, necessitating further surgical interventions. Internal fixation, including the use of intramedullary nails or screws, is generally preferred for younger patients or those with less severe fractures. This approach preserves more of the patient's natural bone structure and allows for quicker weight-bearing post-surgery. However, the risk of non-union or malunion remains a concern, potentially leading to prolonged pain and impaired function.

In comparing these interventions, it is crucial to consider patient-specific factors such as age, activity level, bone quality and overall health status. Personalized treatment plans, informed by a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations of each surgical option, are essential for optimizing patient outcomes. Further research is needed to explore the longterm impacts of these surgical interventions on contralateral non-concurrent hip fractures. Larger, multicenter studies and randomized controlled trials would provide more robust data to guide clinical decision-making. Additionally, advancements in surgical techniques and postoperative care are likely to improve the success rates and reduce complications associated with these procedures.

Conclusion

No single surgical intervention is universally superior for CNCHF. The decision should be tailored to each patient's clinical scenario, balancing the benefits and risks of each approach. Further research, particularly high-quality RCTs, is needed to establish more definitive guidelines for managing CNCHF.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Cunningham, Rebecca M., Maureen A. Walton and Patrick M. Carter. "The major causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States." New Eng J Med 379 (2018): 2468-2475.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Andrews, Annie L., Xzavier Killings, Elizabeth R. Oddo and Kelsey AB Gastineau, et al. "Pediatric firearm injury mortality epidemiology." Pediatrics 149 (2022): e2021052739.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Quiroz, Hallie J., Liann C. Casey, Joshua P. Parreco and Brent A. Willobee, et al. "Human and economic costs of pediatric firearm injury." J Pediat Surg 55 (2020): 944-949.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Boschert, Emily N., Connor E. Stubblefield, Kimberly J. Reid and Richard M. Schwend, et al. "Twenty-two years of pediatric musculoskeletal firearm injuries: adverse outcomes for the very young." J Pediat Ortho 41 (2021): e153-e160.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Rosas, Samuel, Chukwuweike U. Gwam, Edgar T. Araiza and Martin W. Roche, et al. "Economic impact of orthopaedic care for non-fatal gunshot wounds: analysis of a public health crisis." Ann Transl Med 9 (2021).

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at