Femoral neck fractures after removal of hardware in healed trochanteric fractures

Introduction: Hardware removal in healed trochanteric fractures (TF) in the absence of infection or significant mechanical complications is rarely indicated. However, in patients with persistent pain, prominent material and discomfort in the activities of daily living, the implant is eventually removed. Publications of ipsilateral femoral neck fracture after removal of implants from healed trochanteric fractures (FNFARIHTF) just because of pain or discomfort are rare. The purpose of this systematic review of the literature is to report on the eventual risk factors, the mechanisms, the clinical presentation, and frequency, and to pay special emphasis in their prevention.

Materials and methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines with no language restriction. Case reports of FNFARIHTF and series of TF with cases of FNFARIHTF due to pain or discomfort published between inception of journals to December 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Relevant information was divided in two parts. Part I included the analysis of cases of FNFARIHTF, with the objective of establishing the eventual risk factors, mechanisms and pathoanatomy, clinical presentation and diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Part II analyzed series of TF which included cases of FNFARIHTF for assessing the incidence of femoral neck fractures in this condition.

Results: Overall 24 publications with 45 cases of FNFARIHTF met the inclusion criteria. We found that the only prevalent factors for FNFARIHTF were: 1) preexisisting systemic osteoporosis, as most patients were older and elder females, with lower bone mineral density and bone mass; 2) local osteoporosis as a result of preloading by the fixation device in the femoral neck, leading to stress protection, reducing the strain at the neck, and increasing bone loss and weakness; and 3) the removal of hardware from the femoral neck, with reduction of the failure strength of the neck. The femoral neck fractures were spontaneous, i.e. not related to trauma or fall, in 87.5% of the cases, mostly subcapital, and with no prevalence between displaced and undisplaced fractures. The clinical presentation was that of a spontaneous fracture, and most of the patients consulted because of hip pain and presented in the emergency room walking by themselves which led to delayed diagnosis in several instances. Radiological diagnosis was mostly with radiographs, though in some cases CT scans or MRI were necessary. The overall median incidence of this complication was 14.5% after hardware removal because of pain or discomfort in healed trochanteric fractures.

Conclusion: The risk factors for FNFARIHTF seem to be preexisisting systemic osteoporosis, local osteoporosis as a result of preloading by the fixation device in the femoral neck, and the removal of hardware from the femoral neck, with reduction of the strength of the neck. The clinical presentation may be obscure as most of the patients complain of hip pain of some days or weeks, and arrive in the hospital walking. Therefore, the attending physician should be alert in order to request the appropriate radiological investigation and if this is not clear CT scan or MRI should be done in order to diagnose promptly these “spontaneous” fractures. Treatment should be replacement surgery in most cases; however, there is some place for internal fixation especially in undisplaced fractures or younger patients. The occurrence of the femoral neck fracture after hardware removal may be prevented with re-osteosynthesis and the use of bone chips or bone substitutes. Finally, the relatively high incidence of this complication should alert orthopaedic surgeons to reduce the removal of hardware in healed trochanteric fractures to very selected cases.