Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 21132

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2021 | Month : July | Volume : 15 | Issue : 7 | Page : RC08 - RC11 Full Version

Role of Valgus Osteotomy and Fixation with Double Angle Blade Plate in the Management of Neglected and Ununited Femoral Neck Fracture


Published: July 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/44597.15169
Hari Om Aggarwal, Amandeep Singh Bakshi, Harjit K Singh Chawla, Ayush Jain, Jaspreet Singh

1. Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India. 4. Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India.

Correspondence Address :
Harjit K Singh Chawla,
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India.
E-mail: harjitchawla@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Femoral neck fracture non union in young patients is a challenging complication as joint replacement is not readily recommended and hip salvageable procedures are relatively unsatisfactory. Valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy described by Pauwels F is one of the treatment options for management of non union of femoral neck in young patients, which was later reciprocated by other surgeons.

Aim: To assess the efficacy of valgus osteotomy and fixation with double angle blade plate in the management of neglected and ununited femoral neck fracture.

Materials and Methods: This was a prospective cohort study, which included 30 patients of femoral neck fracture non union in whom intertrochanteric valgus osteotomy was performed and fixed with 120° double angled blade plate. The preoperative and postoperative neck-shaft angle was compared using the paired t-test. A p-value of <0.05 indicated statistically significant result.

Results: There were 22 males (73.3%) and 8 females (26.7%). Mean age of patients was 35 years. Delay in presentation ranged from 8 weeks to 58 weeks (mean 24 weeks). By Pauwel’s classification, there were 13 Type II fractures and 17 Type III fractures. Mean follow-up was 18 months (12 to 36 months). The mean preoperative neck-shaft angle of 95° (range 80-110°) increased to 132° (range 120-140°) after surgery. In all patients, there was improvement in leg length discrepancy after osteotomy. Femoral neck fractures united in 25 patients (83.3%).

Conclusion: Valgus osteotomy and fixation with 120° double angle blade plate is a reliable method for treating non union femoral neck fracture in young adults. It provides rigid internal fixation and good results.

Keywords

Internal fixation, Intertrochanteric osteotomy, Kirschner wires, Neck-shaft angle

Intracapsular femoral neck fracture is one of the most common injury encountered in Orthopaedics with majority being low energy trauma seen in elderly patients (1). However, rarely these fractures can occur in younger patients as a result of high energy trauma. Despite vast advances in fixation like implants and surgical techniques, about one-third of the cases of displaced femoral neck fractures result into non union (2).

Even after internal fixation of a fracture of the femoral neck the rate of non union described in the literature ranges between 10% and 30% (3),(4),(5). Non union of the femoral neck is associated with a plethora of complications such as osteopenia, osteoporotic changes in the femoral head, failed or unstable implant and infection (3),(6),(7),(8). In older patients, due to impaired vascularity, preservation of head is not recommended and in these patients joint replacement surgery is the main modality of treatment (3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8). In younger patients with physiological age of less than 55 years with no medical comorbidity, good bone stock and preserved joint function, preservation of femoral head is advisable (4).

A number of treatment options for preservation of femoral head have been described e.g. muscle pedicle grafts, vascularised and nonvascularised fibular grafts, proximal femoral osteotomy but none of them is the unanimous choice for management of femoral neck non union; as most of them have a steep learning curve and fair share of complications (9),(10),(11). Meyers MH et al., used muscle pedicle bone grating in 8 patients with non union of femoral neck after failed osteosynthesis and reported a 75% union rate (12).

Pauwels F predicted that the problem in non union of femoral neck, is not only biological but also mechanical (13). He suggested that by changing the inclination of the fracture, shearing forces can be transformed into compressive forces, resulting in fracture union. He performed a closed lateral wedge valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy resulting in compression at the fracture site. Following the same principles, favorable results have been achieved by various authors (14),(15). Valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy also helps restore limb length discrepancy by gaining length at the osteotomy site.

The study aimed to assess role of valgus osteotomy and fixation with double angle blade plate in the management of neglected and ununited femoral neck fracture in young patients.

Material and Methods

This was a prospective cohort study conducted between January 2014 and July 2018 in the Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India. Valgus intertrochanteric osteotomies for neglected and ununited femoral neck fractures were performed in 30 consecutive patients. After getting approval from the Institutional Ethical Committee (INST/2020/997/3398), an informed consent was taken from each patient. The procedures followed were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 that was revised in 2000.

Inclusion criteria: (i) Age less than 60 years; (ii) Fracture of neck of the femur with time since injury more than or equal to 3 weeks; (iii) Fracture of neck of the femur with implant failure (non union with varus collapse).

Exclusion criteria: (i) Patients with advanced Avascular Necrosis (AVN) changes on plain radiography; (ii) Patients with significant resorption of femoral neck with proximal fragment less than 2.5 cm; (iii) patients with pathological fractures.

Functional Outcome

Functional outcome was judged according to Askin SR and Bryan RS criteria (15):

Excellent- Full range of movements and strength, little or no pain and essentially normal appearing radiographs.

Good- Some limitation of motion, mild discomfort and mild joint space narrowing.

Fair- Some limitation of motion and moderate pain with degenerative changes or aseptic necrosis.

Poor- Severe restriction of function and pain requiring salvage procedure.

Surgical Technique

From January 2014 to July 2018, 30 cases of non union of femoral neck fractures in young patients (less than 60-year-old) were taken up for valgus osteotomy and fixed using 120° double angled condylar blade plate, by the same team of orthopaedic surgeons lead by the first author. Preoperative radiographs (Table/Fig 1)a of the hip joint were taken and fracture was classified according to Pauwels’ criteria (16). No preoperative MRI scans were done and patients with advanced AVN changes on radiographs were excluded. The preoperative Pauwel’s angle was calculated for each fracture and the osteotomy was planned in such a manner so as to achieve a Pauwel’s angle of 30° or less. The goal of osteotomy was to achieve compression at the fracture site. The site of osteotomy was at the level of lesser trochanter and desired wedge was resected depending on Pauwel’s angle as described by Pauwels F and later modified by Mueller ME (16),(17). The surgery was performed under spinal plus epidural anaesthesia, patient was placed on standard fracture table with image intensifier guide. Direct lateral skin incision was given, centered over and in line with greater trochanter proximally to femoral shaft distally. Underlying fascia was incised in line with skin incision and the vastus lateralis muscle was split open to expose the proximal femur. All previous surgical implants were removed. Two 2.5 mm Kirschner wires were passed through the lateral cortex into the femoral head and fracture was provisionally stabilized. Open reduction of the fracture site was not done, as it further compromises the blood supply to the femoral head. Interfragmentary compression at the fracture site is now achieved with the help of single 6.5 mm partially threaded cancellous cannulated screw placed in the proximal part of the neck of the femur. Provisional kirschner wires were removed after appropriate length screw placement. Under image intensifier appropriate entry point for the chisel was marked on the greater trochanter in both the anteroposterior and lateral views. A chisel was then introduced into the femoral head and a track was created for the blade of the 120° double-angled osteotomy blade plate (Stainless Steel 316L, Kaushik). The intertrochanteric osteotomy was carried out 2 cm distal to the blade entry point and desired wedge of bone was removed. The lower limb was abducted to close the osteotomy site and to align the plate to the femur which was stabilised with cortical screws.

Postoperatively, patients were mobilised with crutches and non weight bearing was allowed for initial six weeks. After six weeks partial weight bearing was allowed as tolerated by the patient. Full weight bearing was allowed only after union. Clinical signs of union were defined as absence of pain and tenderness at the fracture site on weight bearing. Radiological healing was determined by evidence of bridging callus across the fracture site on plain radiographs as seen in (Table/Fig 1), (Table/Fig 2).

Statistical Analysis

This was performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 software (Armonk, New York). The preoperative and postoperative neck-shaft angle was compared using the paired t-test. A p-value of <0.05 indicated statistically significant result.

Results

Mean age of patients was 35 years (range 18 years to 58 years). Delay in presentation ranged from 8 to 58 weeks (mean 24 weeks). Right hip was affected in 18 cases (60%) and left hip was affected in 12 cases (40%). There were 22 males (73.3%) and 8 females (26.7%). There were 13 (43.3%) Pauwels’ type II and 17 (56.7%) Pauwels’ type III fractures.

Mean follow-up was 18 months (12 months-36 months). The fracture showed a satisfactory union in 83.3% of cases (25 out of 30) at mean interval of 18 weeks (12-32 weeks). The osteotomy site went into union in all the cases, one patient was lost to follow-up.

The mean preoperative neck-shaft angle of 95° (range 80-110°) increased to 132° (range 120-140°) after surgery (Table/Fig 1), (Table/Fig 2). In all patients, there was improvement in leg length discrepancy after osteotomy which was statistically significant. The mean limb length discrepancy preoperative was 2.7 cm (range 1.5-4) postoperatively was 1.8 cm (range 1-2.5 cm) (Table/Fig 3). There were no deep infections or deep vein thrombosis in the immediate postoperative period and no coxa vara deformity in any patient.

According to Askin SR and Bryan RS criteria, 15 (50%) patients had excellent outcome, 7 (23.3%) patients had good outcome patients and 3 (10%) patients had fair outcome. 4 (13.3%) patients had poor outcome, out of which two had avascular necrosis with collapse of femoral head. In one case, the position of blade was not central, (inappropriate surgical technique) this led to cut through of blade out of the head after 12 weeks of surgery and implant penetration into the joint was observed in one case after 12 weeks (inappropriate length of the blade). Bipolar hemiarthroplasty was done in all the patients who had poor outcome. All the patients with fracture union were able to perform routine daily life activities such squatting and sitting cross-legged.

Discussion

Management of Femoral neck fractures in young active adult patients is by early reduction and stable osteosynthesis. Despite advancement in reduction and internal fixation techniques and better understanding of fracture morphology the non union rate of femoral neck fracture reported ranges from 4%-30% of cases. (7),(8). Various surgical treatment options have been described to treat femoral neck fractures non union so as to preserve the femoral head. However, all have a significant rate of complications (3),(6),(18). This study aimed to assess whether valgus osteotomy and fixation with double angle blade plate reliably achieved union and restored function. Pauwels F recognized that non-union of femoral neck fracture is due to high shear stress across fracture site and by changing the inclination of the fracture, shearing forces can be transformed into compressive forces and this would result in consolidation of fracture within few months (16). He showed that a laterally based closed wedge valgus osteotomy would lead to compression at the non union site and thus union at fracture. For immobilization of the fracture, postoperatively hip spica was applied. Later, Mueller ME suggested fixation of fracture and osteotomy with the help of condylar blade plate for early mobilization of the patients (17).

Angelen JO achieved 100 % union rate in 13 patients with failed osteosynthesis of femoral neck treated with valgus osteotomy (19). Wu CC et al., reported a union rate of 95% using a sliding hip screw to achieve compression at non union and to realign the proximal femur (20). As previously considered to be a contraindication, valgus osteotomy in avascular necrosis without collapse of the femoral head has also been reported with successful outcome (21). Sen RK et al., treated 22 patients of failed internal fixation using an angle blade plate and autogenous nonvascularised fibular graft and achieved union in 91% patients (22). Gadegone WM et al., treated forty-one patients of neglected femoral neck fractures with Valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy and fibular strut graft and achieved union in 95% patients (23). Kulkarni SG et al., operated 44 cases of neck femur non union with delayed presentations (more than 3 weeks), with Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) and compression screw and reported complete union in most (93%) of the cases (24).

In most of case series of valgus osteotomy reported in literature (Table/Fig 4), fixation has been done by angle blade plate, thus for comparison the index authors have also used blade plate for fixation in this study. The blade plate has a U-cross-section that provides high strength with minimum bone displacement. The advantage of double angle blade plate over angle blade plate is that it provides better control of fracture fragments. This technique resulted in union in 25 (83.3%) of 30 patients in this study. Valgus osteotomy is believed to promote osteogenesis by acting as a biomechanical stimulus. It helps convert shearing forces at fracture site into compressive forces and improves stability as it is an angle fixed device and provide rigid fixation (18). The surgery is a definitive, minimal learning curve and cost-effective option in young patients with neglected or ununited femoral neck fracture.

Limitation(s)

Limitation of this study is that no preoperative MRI scan was done to assess the early AVN changes in the femoral head.

Conclusion

In the present study, union was achieved in 25 patients (83.3%) undergoing Pauwel’s osteotomy, which is remarkable as this procedure helps preserve the femoral head in young patients. It can be concluded that valgus osteotomy and internal fixation with 120° double angle blade plate is a simple and reproducible procedure which has high success rate of union of fracture in young patients with neglected and ununited intracapsular fracture neck of femur. The potential benefit of this procedure is salvaging a viable biologic and functional joint. This study recommends this procedure for neglected femoral neck fractures in young patients.

References

1.
Zetterberg C, Elmerson S, Andersson GB. Epidemiology of hip fractures in Goteborg, Sweden, 1940-1983. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;(191):43-52. [crossref]
2.
Banks HH. Nonunion in fractures of the femoral neck. Orthop Clin North Am. 1974;5(4):865-85. [crossref]
3.
Mathews V, Cabanela ME. Femoral neck nonunion treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;419:57-64. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Magu NK, Singla R, Rohilla R, Gogna P, Mukhopadhyay R, Singh A. Modified Pauwels’ intertrochanteric osteotomy in the management of nonunion of a femoral neck fracture following failed osteosynthesis. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(9):1198-201. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Gupta A. The management of ununited fractures of the femoral neck using internal fixation and muscle pedicle periosteal grafting. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2007;89-B(11):1482-87. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Angelini M, McKee MD, Waddell JP, Haidukewych G, Schemitsch EH. Salvage of failed hip fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(6):471-78. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Haidukewych GJ. Salvage of failed treatment of femoral neck fractures. Instr Course Lect. 2009;58:83-90.
8.
Jackson M, Learmonth ID. The treatment of nonunion after intracapsular fracture of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;399:119-28. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Baksi DP. Internal fixation of ununited femoral neck fracture combined with muscle-pedicle bone grafting. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1986;68(2):239-45. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
LeCroy CM, Rizzo M, Gunneson EE, Urbaniak JR. Free vascularised fibular bone grafting in the management of femoral neck nonunion in patients younger than fifty years. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16(7):464-72. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Beris AE, Payatakes AH, Kostopoulos VK, Korompilias AV, Mavrodontidis AN, Vekris MD, et al. Nonunion of femoral neck fractures with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: Treatment with combined free vascularised fibular grafting and subtrochanteric valgus osteotomy. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35(3):335-43. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Meyers MH, Harvey JP Jr, Moore TM. Delayed treatment of subcapital and transcervical fractures of the neck of the femur with internal fixation and a muscle pedicle bone graft. Orthop Clin North Am. 1974;5(4):743-56. [crossref]
13.
Pauwels F. Biomechanics of the normal and diseased hip. Berlin: Springer; 1976; pp. 129-271. [crossref]
14.
Nagi ON, Dhillon MS, Goni VG. Open reduction, internal fixation and fibular auto grafting for neglected fracture of femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1998;80(5):798-804. [crossref]
15.
Askin SR, Bryan RS. Femoral neck fractures in young adults. Clin Orthop. 1976;114:259-64. [crossref]
16.
Pauwels F. Der Schenkelhalsbruch, ein mechanisches problem. Royal 8 vol. Pp. 157, with 186 illustrations. 1935. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke. Paper covers, RM. 13.60; bound, RM. 15.00. Br J Surg. 1936;23(92):874. [crossref]
17.
Mueller ME. The intertrochanteric osteotomy and pseudarthrosis of the femoral neck. 1957. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(363):05-08. [crossref]
18.
Asnis SE, Wanek-Sgaglione L. Intracapsular fractures of femoral neck: Results of cannulated screw fixation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1994;76(12):1793-803. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Angelen JO. Intertrochantric osteotomy for failed internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop. 1997;341:175-82. [crossref]
20.
Wu CC, Shih CH, Chen WJ, Tai CL. Treatment of femoral neck nonunion with a sliding compression screw: Comparison with and without subtrochantric valgus osteotomy. J Trauma. 1999;46(2):312-17. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Schwartsmann CR, Spinelli Lde F, Yépez AK, Boschin LC, Silva MF. Femoral neck nonunion treatment by valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy. Acta Ortop Bras. 2015;23(6):319-22. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Sen RK, Tripathy SK, Goyal T, Aggarwal S, Tahasildar N, Singh D, et al. Osteosynthesis of femoral-neck nonunion with angle blade plate and autogenous fibular graft. Int Orthop. 2012;36(4):827-32. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Gadegone WM, Ramteke AA, Lokhande V, Salphade Y. Valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy and fibular strut graft in the management of neglected femoral neck fracture. Injury. 2013;44(6):763-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Kulkarni SG, Kulkarni GS, Babhulkar S, Kulkarni MG, Kulkarni RM. Accuracy of valgus osteotomy using dynamic hip screw. Injury. 2017;48(Suppl 2):S02-07. [crossref]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/44597.15169

Date of Submission: Apr 09, 2020
Date of Peer Review: Nov 09, 2020
Date of Acceptance: Mar 10, 2021
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 10, 2020
• Manual Googling: Nov 09, 2020
• iThenticate Software: May 07, 2021 (23%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com