Search

Background: Arthroplasty has not been proven superior over internal fixation for the treatment of non-displaced femoral neck fractures. However, internal fixation has been followed by high rates of revision for mechanical complications and of femoral neck impaction within the first postoperative year. The objective of this study was to determine whether femoral neck impaction was associated with avascular necrosis (AVN)., Hypothesis: Fracture healing with femoral neck shortening by impaction after internal fixation of a femoral neck fracture is associated with AVN., Material and Methods: A single-centre retrospective study in patients with Garden I fractures managed by screw fixation was performed to compare outcomes in the groups with and without femoral neck impaction. Follow-up radiographs were assessed for evidence of the femoral neck impaction during fracture healing. The occurrence of AVN was the primary evaluation criterion. The secondary evaluation criteria were risk factors for impaction and complications., Results: Of the 75 included patients, 9 (12%) experienced AVN. Impaction was significantly associated with AVN (p=0.02; relative risk, 4.38). Significant risk factors for impaction were a higher body mass index (p=0.0003) and valgus-impacted fracture reduction between the radiographs at baseline and immediately after surgery (p=0.0001)., Discussion: Femoral neck impaction was a significant risk factor for AVN after screw fixation of Garden I fractures. Valgus-impacted fracture reduction must receive careful attention during fixation. We suggest static internal fixation if the impaction is reduced on a traction table and advise caution when using parallel screws. The diagnostic and therapeutic strategy proposed here deserves to be evaluated in a prospective study., Level of Evidence: III, retrospective comparative study., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background The optimal access for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) who are not candidates for a transfemoral approach has not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes of transcarotid TAVR compared with thoracic approaches. Methods and Results From a multicenter consecutive cohort of 329 alternative-access TAVR patients (2012-2017), we identified 101 patients who underwent transcarotid TAVR and 228 patients who underwent a transapical or transaortic TAVR. Preprocedural success and 30-day clinical outcomes were compared using multivariable propensity score analysis to account for between-group differences in baseline characteristics. All transcarotid cases were performed under general anesthesia, mainly using the left common carotid artery (97%). Propensity-matched groups had similar rates of 30-day all-cause mortality (2.1% versus 4.6%; P=0.37), stroke (2.1% versus 3.5%; P=0.67; transcarotid versus transapical/transaortic, respectively), new pacemaker implantation, and major vascular complications. Transcarotid TAVR was associated with significantly less new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% versus 19.0%; P=0.002), major or life-threatening bleeding (4.3% versus 19.9%; P=0.002), acute kidney injury (none versus 12.1%; P=0.002), and shorter median length of hospital stay (6 versus 8 days; P<0.001). Conclusions Transcarotid vascular access for TAVR is safe and feasible and is associated with encouraging short-term clinical outcomes. Our data suggest a clinical benefit of transcarotid TAVR with respect to atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and length of stay compared with the more invasive transapical or transaortic strategies. Randomized studies are required to ascertain whether transcarotid TAVR yields equivalent results to other alternative vascular access routes.