
==== Front
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
0936-8051
1434-3916
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39196404
5462
10.1007/s00402-024-05462-8
Trauma Surgery
Changing treatment of hip fractures in Finland
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4345-6334
Leino Oskari K. oskari.leino@utu.fi

1
Forsbacka Nora 1
Laaksonen Inari E. 1
Mäkelä Keijo T. 1
Matilainen Markus 2
Ekman Elina M. 1
1 grid.1374.1 0000 0001 2097 1371 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
2 https://ror.org/05vghhr25 grid.1374.1 0000 0001 2097 1371 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
28 8 2024
28 8 2024
2024
144 8 34693478
10 9 2023
11 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Introduction

Hip fracture treatment should be as standardized and effective as possible, with emphasis on fast recovery and avoidance of complications, especially those leading to reoperations. There is accumulating evidence regarding the optimal treatment of hip fractures but reports of whether this has influenced treatment in the clinical setting are sparse. The objective of this study was to determine the trends of hip fracture incidence and treatment in Finland, with special regard to how we treat older patients compared to younger ones.

Materials and methods

All operatively treated hip fractures in Finland between 1997 and 2018 were identified from a national administrative register. The incidence of these fractures and operations performed to treat them were calculated based on the adult population size.

Results

Apart from a decline in the elderly age groups during the first half of the study period, the incidence of hip fractures remained relatively constant. However, the incidences of different operations changed significantly. In treatment of femoral neck fractures from 1997 to 2018, the incidence of cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) increased from 41.1 to 59.9 per 100,000 person-years (105) and hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) from 0.56 to 5.93 per 105, while the incidence of internal fixation (IF) decreased, for instance screw fixation from 12.5 to 2.7 per 105. The incidence of cementless HA decreased from 13.3 to 1.2 per 105. These changes were much more pronounced in the elderly population and there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients aged > 59 treated with cemented HA and IF in 1997 compared to 2018. For trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures, treatment with intramedullary nails replaced extramedullary devices as the most common treatment method.

Conclusions

The changes in treatment methods in Finland correspond to the increasing knowledge available about the optimal treatment of hip fractures and global treatment trends.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00402-024-05462-8.

Keywords

Hip fracture
Incidence
Treatment
Osteosynthesis
Arthroplasty
University of Turku (including Turku University Central Hospital)Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (including Turku University Central Hospital).

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Hip fractures are associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and functional impairment [1–3]. The incidence of hip fractures is decreasing in the Nordic countries and in the USA [4–6]. There is accumulating evidence regarding the optimal treatment of different hip fracture types. In general, hip fractures are treated operatively because the use of nonoperative treatment has been shown to lead to poor clinical results, even in non-displaced femoral neck fractures [7]. Operative treatment options for femoral neck fractures include IF and arthroplasty. Fractures of the trochanteric and subtrochanteric region are generally treated with IF, and extramedullary devices such as the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) have been challenged by intramedullary (IM) nailing, which has gained popularity in recent years [8]. This study aimed to determine the incidences of all operatively treated hip fractures in Finland by fracture type and treatment method between 1997 and 2018, with focus on the treatment of elderly patients compared to younger ones. To our knowledge, no other studies have reported national distributions of fracture types or treatment methods not only focusing on a specific age, population group or fracture type. Our expectation was that in femoral neck fractures, the use of cemented arthroplasty has increased and the use of IF has decreased in the elderly and that the use of IM nailing has become the most common treatment in trochanteric fractures.

Materials and methods

This study was based on data from the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register (NHDR), which is maintained by the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL). The register covers all patient records from private and public hospitals in Finland and has been in use since the 1960s. From each record, the register collects data on age, sex, domicile, external cause and type of injury, primary and secondary diagnoses, type of hospital (public or private), type of visit (emergency or inpatient care), specialty of service (internal medicine or orthopedics, etc.), and possible operations performed during the visit. The validity of the NHDR has been found to be good, especially in orthopedic trauma [9, 10]. The database was searched for all records with diagnosis codes S72.0 (Femoral neck fracture), S72.1 (Pertrochanteric femoral fracture), and S72.2 (Subtrochanteric femoral fracture) (International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10) from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2018 because ICD-10 coding was introduced in 1996 in Finland. Only skeletally mature patients aged 16 and older were included. Exclusion of records was performed to identify and include only records with a primary surgical operation due to an acute hip fracture. (See exclusion flow chart [Fig. 1] and table of included Nordic Classification of Surgical Procedures [NCSP] procedural codes and excluded diagnosis and NCSP codes in the supplementary data.) The overall incidence and age- and sex-adjusted incidences were calculated based on the annual adult population size obtained from Statistics Finland [11]. Because the analysis was based on the entire population rather than cohort-based estimates, there was no need for 95% confidence interval calculations [4]. The significance of the trends in all incidences were assessed using the Mann-Kendall test (using R-software package Trend, version 1.1.6.). The Chi-squared test was used to assess the difference in proportions of cemented HA and IF for surgical neck fractures in the two oldest age groups, and the differences in incidences between age groups and sexes. P-values 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.

Fig. 1 Exclusion flow chart (NHDR = National Hospital Discharge Register, NCSP = Nordic Classification of Surgical Procedures)

Results

We identified 119,128 patient records representing acute hip fractures with a primary surgical procedure. There were 73,314 operatively treated femoral neck fractures (61.5%), 37,739 operatively treated pertrochanteric fractures (31.7%), and 8,075 operatively treated subtrochanteric fractures (6.8%). During 1997–2018, no significant change was detected in the overall incidences of these fractures (Mann-Kendall test p-value 0.5 meaning no significant trend). The 1997 and 2018 incidences per 100,000 person-years (105) of all operatively treated hip fractures were 127.0 vs. 128.3 per 105, 80.4 vs. 77.7 per 105 for femoral neck fractures, 38.5 vs. 42.8 per 105 for pertrochanteric fractures, and 8.13 vs. 7.85 per 105 for subtrochanteric fractures, respectively. (Fig. 2a).

Fig. 2 a Incidence of hip fractures by diagnosis b Incidence of hip fractures by diagnosis, sex, and age group (S720 = femoral neck fracture, S721 = pertrochanteric fracture S722 = subtrochanteric fracture)

The incidence was higher in the elderly age groups and among women in the elderly age groups (all p-values from tests between all the age groups and between the sexes in the two oldest age groups < 0.001). For instance, while the unadjusted incidence of all operatively treated hip fractures in 2018 was 128.3 per 105, the 2018 incidence in patients aged 16–39 was 2.2 per 105 (women 0.8 / men 3.5), 18.8 per 105 in 40–59-year-old patients (w 12.8 / m 24.7), 160.1 per 105 in 60–79-year-old patients (w 177.8 / m 140.3), and 1,189.4 per 105 in > 79-year-old patients (w 1,389.5 / m 824.7). The incidence of all operatively treated hip fractures declined in the two oldest age groups during the first half of the study period. In 1997, the incidence in patients aged 60–79 and > 79 years were 237.0 per 105 (w 284.2 / m 173.5) and 1,728.3 per 105 (w 1,971.7 / m 1,079.4), respectively. (Fig. 2b). The trend was significant from 1997 to 2008 (p < 0.001 in both age groups), but not from 2008 to 2018 (p = 0.4 and p = 0.8, respectively).

Treatment of femoral neck fractures

A total of 44,813 cemented HAs, 7,946 cementless HAs, 1,504 hybrid THAs, 2,154 cementless THAs, 8,118 screw fixations, and 4,595 DHS fixations were performed to treat femoral neck fractures. In 1997–2018, the incidence of cemented HA increased from 41.1 to 59.9 per 105 (p = 0.091) and hybrid THA increased from 0.56 to 5.93 per 105 (p < 0.001), while cementless HA decreased from 13.3 to 1.2 per 105 (p = 0.018). The incidence of cementless THA increased from 0.66 per 105 in 1997, peaking at 4.40 per 105 in 2010 (1997 to 2010 trend p = 0.003), and then decreased to 2.12 per 105 in 2018 (2010 to 2018 trend p = 0.001). The use of screw fixation decreased from 12.5 to 2.7 per 105 (p < 0.001) and the use of DHS fixation decreased from 7.35 to 2.06 per 105 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 3a and b). Regarding the differences in treatment methods between age groups see Table 1. The shift toward cemented stems was clear in patients aged > 59, whereas the treatment methods remained more heterogeneous in younger patients. In age group 16–39, the incidences of all other arthroplasties were mostly 0 with a few sporadic years of incidence up to 0.18 per 105 (mean incidence for all 0.01) while cementless THA incidence was more constant varying between 0 and 0.19 per 105 (mean 0.08). Despite the fact that the change in incidence of cemented HA did not quite reach statistical significance in the general population, in the age group 60–79, there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients treated with cemented HA in 1997 (46%) compared to 2018 (64%) (p < 0.001). In the same age group, there was a corresponding statistically significant difference in the proportion of IF patients in 1997 (29%) compared to 2018 (10%) (p < 0.001). The same was true for the age group > 79 (cemented HA 1997: 60% vs. 2018: 90% (p < 0.001), and IF 1997: 19% vs. 2018: 6% (p < 0.001)).

Fig. 3 a Incidence of operations performed for femoral neck fractures by operation type b Incidence of operations performed for femoral neck fractures by operation type and age group (HA = Hemiarthroplasty, DHS = Dynamic Hip Screw, THA = Total Hip Arthroplasty, Cem. = Cemented)

Table 1 1997 and 2018 incidences of operation types by age group (HA = hemiarthroplasty, DHS = dynamic hip screw, THA = total hip arthroplasty, Cem. = cemented)

Treatment of pertrochanteric fractures

Records indicated that 17,917 short IM nailings, 16,625 DHS fixations, 1,308 screw fixations, 1,050 arthroplasties, and 839 long IM nailings were performed to treat pertrochanteric fractures. The incidence of DHS use for pertrochanteric fractures decreased in 1997–2018 from 25.6 to 4.8 per 105 (p < 0.001) and that of short IM nails increased from 6.8 to 34.2 per 105 (p < 0.001). (Figure 4a and b; Table 1).

Fig. 4 a Incidence of operations performed for pertrochanteric fractures by operation type b Incidence of operations performed for pertrochanteric fractures by operation type and age group (DHS = Dynamic Hip Screw)

Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures

A total of 5,231 short IM nailings, 1,326 DHS fixations, 1,136 long IM nailings, and 227 arthroplasties were performed to treat subtrochanteric fractures. The incidence of these fractures treated with short IM nails increased in 1997–2018 from 3.14 to 4.70 per 105 (p = 0.063) and those treated with DHS decreased from 3.94 to 0.20 per 105 (p < 0.001). The incidence of long IM nails increased toward the end of the study period from 0.22 to 2.73 per 105 (p < 0.001) and the most pronounced increase was in age group > 79. (Figure 5a and b; Table 1).

Fig. 5 a Incidence of operations performed for subtrochanteric fractures by operation type b Incidence of operations performed for pertrochanteric fractures by operation type and age group (DHS = Dynamic Hip Screw)

The use of arthroplasty for pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures remained marginal (trend p = 0.063 and p < 0.001, respectively) throughout the period (numbering 1,050 for pertrochanteric and 227 for subtrochanteric fractures) with respective incidences ranging between 0.72 and 1.53 per 105 (mean 1.10) and 0.11–0.39 per 105 (mean 0.24) (Figs. 4a and b and 5a and b; Table 1).

Discussion

We found that apart from a significant decline in the elderly age groups during the first half of the study period, the incidence of hip fractures remained relatively constant. Despite this, most treatment methods changed significantly. For femoral neck fractures, we see that cemented HA became more popular while use of IF and cementless HA decreased significantly, especially in the older age groups. Although THA numbers were small compared to HA, the increase in hybrid THA incidence was almost 1,000% during the period. For pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures, the use of IM nails effectively replaced DHS or comparable extramedullary devices.

The fractures in this study most often affected elderly women, whereas younger patients were predominantly men, mirroring previous epidemiological studies [4–6]. The decrease in operatively treated hip fracture incidence in the two oldest age groups during the first half of the study period corresponds to previously reported age-adjusted incidences of hip fractures from Finland by Kannus et al. [4] and other epidemiological studies reporting decreasing hip fracture incidence especially among the elderly female population [5, 6]. It seems that this decline has hence evened out. One should also note that hip fracture numbers are increasing despite the decreasing incidence rates due to the growing elderly populations in developed countries.

Treatment of femoral neck fractures

Due to the risk of avascular necrosis of the femoral head in displaced femoral neck fractures, IF is generally recommended primarily for non-displaced and minimally displaced fractures [12]. IF has been compared with arthroplasty, which has been shown to lead to more predictable outcomes and less reoperations, even in cases of non-displaced fractures in the elderly [7, 13–15]. A recent Swedish study reported that 1 in 10 patients aged > 59 treated with IF for non-displaced fractures had revision to arthroplasty within five years [16]. Others report reoperation rates of 18% [17] to as high as 27% [13] after IF. A 2016 review concluded that arthroplasty should be the treatment of choice for elderly patients [18]. This notion is further reinforced by a recent Cochrane review [19]. Our results show that during 1997–2018, the use of IF significantly decreased in Finnish patients, especially those aged > 59. Similar results have been reported from Denmark in 1997–2017, where the use of IF decreased from 48 to 25% of all operatively treated femoral neck fractures in patients aged > 59 [5]. In Finland, the use of screw fixation decreased even in younger patients. This trend may in part be explained by relative increase in arthroplasty and DHS use in this age group. Another possible explanation is the introduction of novel implants such as the Femoral Neck System (FNS) by Synthes®, an evolution of the sliding hip screw design of the DHS, which is offered as an alternative for DHS or screw fixation. The NCSP system does not currently differentiate between the DHS and FNS, but because the FNS was introduced in 2018, there were few, if any, fractures treated with FNS included in the study.

There is accumulating evidence promoting the use of cemented stems for elderly patients both in HA and THA. The benefits of cemented stems in hip arthroplasty include less risk of periprosthetic fractures and fewer infection complications based on large register datasets [20–22]. These risk differences may be even more pronounced in fracture patients, who are typically elderly and more co-morbid compared to elective THA patients. Cementless HA has been shown to be at higher risk of revision than cemented HA [23], even when infection has been ruled out as cause [24]. A recent British multicenter study comparing cemented with cementless HA even demonstrated significantly better quality of life alongside decreased risk of periprosthetic fracture in patients treated with cemented HA [25]. Previous Finnish reports of increasing use of cementless stems in older fracture patients [26] were in conflict with available evidence regarding the subject. According to our data, this increase was short-lived as the use of cementless HA has significantly decreased. The use of hybrid THA gained popularity especially in patients aged 60–79, but even in younger patients aged 40–59. These younger fracture patients differ from elective THA patients as alcoholism and other conditions associated with higher risks of hip fracture and surgical complications are common, thereby influencing the choice of treatment method. In this age group, the first-hand choice for elective THA patients with good bone quality is a cementless stem [27].

When comparing THA with HA in fracture surgery, better functional outcome and lower revision rates in favor of THA have been reported despite a slightly higher risk of dislocation [28]. Dislocation risk reduction can be achieved by avoiding a posterior approach and using bipolar components in selected cases [29, 30]. It has been suggested that THA should be preferred in < 80-year-olds with more than four years life expectancy [31] and considered for patients who are ambulatory without assisting devices with more than two years expected independence in activities of daily living [32]. Others argue that there is no difference in clinical outcome when treating fitter elderly patients [33] and that the possible differences are clinically nonsignificant [34, 35]. Regardless of these, there are reports of increasing use of THA for hip fractures in the US [36] and in European countries such as Norway [13]. According to Miller et al., the use of THA among all operations performed for femoral neck fractures in patients < 65 increased in the US from 1.4 to 13.1% during 1999–2011 [36]. We see a corresponding trend of increasing THA use in patients aged 40–59, where based on the current data cementless and hybrid THA use increased from 5 to 33% of all operations performed for femoral neck fractures during 1997–2018. In Finland, the use of cemented THA has become increasingly rare thanks to the advances in acetabular polyethylene liner technology as indicated by the Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR) (FAR: Total Hip Arthroplasty: Annual counts, http://www.thl.fi/far/).

Treatment of pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures.

The use of DHS decreased markedly in Finland while that of short IM nails increased. Both trends were statistically significant. The figures crossed in 2008–2009 and the trend continued thereafter. The trend was similar but less apparent in the youngest patients, which may be due to the far lower incidence in this population (the absolute numbers of operations were small in age group 16–39, with 124 DHSs and 76 short IM nails during the entire period) and perhaps the preference of avoiding the trochanter-tip mutilating entry of IM nails. A trend of favoring IM nails has also been observed in the US, where in 1999–2006, the IM nailing rate of intertrochanteric fractures increased from 3 to 67% [8]. In Denmark, the choice of implant in trochanteric fractures also shifted toward IM nailing in 1997–2017 [5]. There are reports of less implant failures and reoperations favoring IM nailing to extramedullary fixation, although some unresolved issues regarding implant type superiority and cost effectiveness remain [37, 38].

Our finding that subtrochanteric femoral fractures were largely treated with short IM nails is interesting. This may be partially explained by the inter-observer variation of fracture classification as per- and intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric, a subject we sometimes find ourselves debating in radiograph meetings. Some of these subtrochanteric fractures are most likely in fact pertrochanteric. The AO/OTA classification of femoral fractures separates fractures of the trochanteric area into stable and unstable subtypes, guiding the decision between implant choices. However, the inter-observer reliability of this classification and other fracture classification systems of the trochanteric area has been questioned [39]. Another explanation might be the use of medium-length nails, such as the 240–280 mm-long Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation by Synthes®, which is indicated for “high subtrochanteric fractures” according to the manufacturer. The NSPC system divides IM nailing of the femur into two categories: NFJ54 (Intramedullary Nailing of Upper Femur) and NFJ60 (Intramedullary Nailing of Femur). These procedural codes are quite ambiguous and might further explain our findings.

There are global reports describing the use and results of hip arthroplasty to treat pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures [40, 41]. In Finland, the use of arthroplasty was marginal in these fractures but not non-existent, as was our expectation. Despite the trend test indicating a statistically significant change in cases of subtrochanteric fractures, this can in our view not be interpreted as a change in clinical paradigm due to the very small number of procedures. We suspect the incidence might be even smaller, as some periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur may have been erroneously coded as proximal femur fractures, despite our efforts to screen out such cases based on additional diagnosis and procedural codes in the records.

Limitations

This is an observational descriptive study based on an administrative register. The process of identifying acute hip fractures from the vast quantity of patient records was done by extensive exclusion as described in the Materials and Methods section. Records in which the exact fracture diagnosis code or surgical procedure code were not clearly ascertainable were excluded. Data on fracture classification other than ICD-10 codes or more specific patient-related issues were not available. This is important as we can only report what has been done, not the reasoning behind the chosen treatment method. The observed changes in treatment methods are under the presumption that fracture pattern distributions and other patient related characteristics have remained relatively stable during the period. We look forward to future studies from countries with high quality fracture registers such as Sweden, where national fracture specific data has been collected for over a decade now, as an answer to this issue [42]. We found that hip fracture diagnosis codes often lingered in subsequent patient records, which is probably a result of the comorbidity and disability that follow this devastating injury, especially in the elderly. Accordingly, we decided to include only the first recorded operatively treated injury of every patient or the first right- and first left-sided operatively treated injury when sidedness data were available. Moreover, identifying nonoperatively treated hip fractures, which was something we were originally hoping to report, was clearly going to be impossible. We know that a small portion of hip fractures are treated nonoperatively, such as in some cases of trochanter tip avulsions and cases where the patient is in terminal care. However, as the portion of these nonoperatively treated hip fractures is small, we find that the trends in operatively treated hip fracture incidence quite reliably represent the trends in hip fracture incidence in general. This also seems to be the case when comparing our results with previously published data on Finnish hip fracture incidence [4]. A clear strength of this study as well as other national register studies is its power in size as it includes the entire population of a country. The results are generalizable to other developed western countries. Finally, we wish to emphasize that our aim was only to report trends in the incidence of operatively treated hip fractures over time, not to report or compare clinical results or give treatment recommendations.

Conclusion

In Finland, femoral neck fractures were increasingly treated with arthroplasty with cemented stems and the use of osteosynthesis decreased. Trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures were increasingly treated with IM nailing while extramedullary devices became less popular. These findings are in line with current scientific evidence concerning the optimal treatment of femoral neck fractures and although the optimal treatment of trochanteric fractures remains controversial, Finnish practices correspond to global treatment trends.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Author contributions

All authors have contributed to the preparation of the manuscript and read and approved it before submission.

Funding

Funds from a 5,200 € grant from the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation were used as funding for this study.

Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (including Turku University Central Hospital).

Declarations

Ethical approval

Ethical approval and the study permit were granted by THL (http://www.thl.fi,study permit number THL/2266/5.05.00/2019).

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Dyer SM Crotty M Fairhall N A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture BMC Geriatr 2016 16 158 10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0 27590604
Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N et al (2016) A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatr 16:158. 10.1186/s12877-016-0332-027590604
2. Karampampa K Ahlbom A Michaëlsson K Declining incidence trends for hip fractures have not been accompanied by improvements in lifetime risk or post-fracture survival - A nationwide study of the Swedish population 60years and older Bone 2015 78 55 61 10.1016/j.bone.2015.04.032 25933944
Karampampa K, Ahlbom A, Michaëlsson K et al (2015) Declining incidence trends for hip fractures have not been accompanied by improvements in lifetime risk or post-fracture survival - A nationwide study of the Swedish population 60years and older. Bone 78:55–61. 10.1016/j.bone.2015.04.03225933944
3. Katsoulis M Benetou V Karapetyan T Excess mortality after hip fracture in elderly persons from Europe and the USA: the CHANCES project J Intern Med 2017 281 300 310 10.1111/joim.12586 28093824
Katsoulis M, Benetou V, Karapetyan T et al (2017) Excess mortality after hip fracture in elderly persons from Europe and the USA: the CHANCES project. J Intern Med 281:300–310. 10.1111/joim.1258628093824
4. Kannus P Niemi S Parkkari J Sievänen H Continuously declining incidence of hip fracture in Finland: analysis of nationwide database in 1970–2016 Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2018 77 64 67 10.1016/j.archger.2018.04.008 29684740
Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Sievänen H (2018) Continuously declining incidence of hip fracture in Finland: analysis of nationwide database in 1970–2016. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 77:64–67. 10.1016/j.archger.2018.04.00829684740
5. Wahlsten LR Palm H Gislason GH Brorson S Sex differences in incidence rate, and temporal changes in surgical management and adverse events after hip fracture surgery in Denmark 1997–2017: a register-based study of 153,058 hip fracture patients Acta Orthop 2021 92 424 430 10.1080/17453674.2021.1923256 33988073
Wahlsten LR, Palm H, Gislason GH, Brorson S (2021) Sex differences in incidence rate, and temporal changes in surgical management and adverse events after hip fracture surgery in Denmark 1997–2017: a register-based study of 153,058 hip fracture patients. Acta Orthop 92:424–430. 10.1080/17453674.2021.192325633988073
6. Brauer CA Coca-Perraillon M Cutler DM Rosen AB Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States JAMA 2009 302 1573 1579 10.1001/JAMA.2009.1462 19826027
Brauer CA, Coca-Perraillon M, Cutler DM, Rosen AB (2009) Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA 302:1573–1579. 10.1001/JAMA.2009.146219826027
7. Xu DF, Bi FG, Ma CY et al (2017) A systematic review of undisplaced femoral neck fracture treatments for patients over 65 years of age, with a focus on union rates and avascular necrosis. J Orthop Surg Res 12. 10.1186/s13018-017-0528-9
8. Anglen JO Weinstein JN Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008 90 700 707 10.2106/JBJS.G.00517 18381305
Anglen JO, Weinstein JN (2008) Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:700–707. 10.2106/JBJS.G.0051718381305
9. Huttunen TT Kannus P Pihlajamäki H Mattila VM Pertrochanteric fracture of the femur in the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register: validity of procedural coding, external cause for injury and diagnosis BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014 15 95 98 10.1186/1471-2474-15-98 24646065
Huttunen TT, Kannus P, Pihlajamäki H, Mattila VM (2014) Pertrochanteric fracture of the femur in the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register: validity of procedural coding, external cause for injury and diagnosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:95–98. 10.1186/1471-2474-15-9824646065
10. Sund R Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: a systematic review Scand J Public Health 2012 40 505 515 10.1177/1403494812456637 22899561
Sund R (2012) Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: a systematic review. Scand J Public Health 40:505–515. 10.1177/140349481245663722899561
11. Statistics Finland Population structure. https://stat.fi/index_en.html
12. Kazley JM Banerjee S Abousayed MM Rosenbaum AJ Classifications in brief: Garden classification of femoral neck fractures Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018 476 441 445 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000066 29389800
Kazley JM, Banerjee S, Abousayed MM, Rosenbaum AJ (2018) Classifications in brief: Garden classification of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:441–44529389800
13. Bartels S Gjertsen JE Frihagen F High failure rate after internal fixation and beneficial outcome after arthroplasty in treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients between 55 and 70 years: an observational study of 2,713 patients reported to the Norwegian hip fracture Regis Acta Orthop 2018 89 53 58 10.1080/17453674.2017.1376514 28914130
Bartels S, Gjertsen JE, Frihagen F et al (2018) High failure rate after internal fixation and beneficial outcome after arthroplasty in treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients between 55 and 70 years: an observational study of 2,713 patients reported to the Norwegian hip fracture Regis. Acta Orthop 89:53–58. 10.1080/17453674.2017.137651428914130
14. Dolatowski FC Frihagen F Bartels S Screw fixation Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Nondisplaced femoral Neck fractures in Elderly patients: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019 101 136 144 10.2106/JBJS.18.00316 30653043
Dolatowski FC, Frihagen F, Bartels S et al (2019) Screw fixation Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Nondisplaced femoral Neck fractures in Elderly patients: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:136–144. 10.2106/JBJS.18.0031630653043
15. Richards JT Overmann AL O’Hara NN Internal fixation Versus Arthroplasty for the treatment of nondisplaced femoral Neck fractures in the Elderly: a systematic review and Meta-analysis J Orthop Trauma 2020 34 42 48 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001656 31725086
Richards JT, Overmann AL, O’Hara NN et al (2020) Internal fixation Versus Arthroplasty for the treatment of nondisplaced femoral Neck fractures in the Elderly: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 34:42–48. 10.1097/BOT.000000000000165631725086
16. Lagergren J Mukka S Wolf O Nauclér E Möller MRC Conversion to Arthroplasty after Internal fixation of nondisplaced femoral Neck fractures: results from a Swedish Register Cohort of 5, 428 individuals 60 years of age or older J Bone Jt Surg Am 2022 10.2106/JBJS.22.01035
Lagergren J, Mukka S, Wolf O, Nauclér E, Möller MRC (2022) Conversion to Arthroplasty after Internal fixation of nondisplaced femoral Neck fractures: results from a Swedish Register Cohort of 5, 428 individuals 60 years of age or older. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 10.2106/JBJS.22.01035
17. Slobogean GP Sprague SA Scott T Bhandari M Complications following young femoral neck fractures Injury 2015 46 484 491 10.1016/J.INJURY.2014.10.010 25480307
Slobogean GP, Sprague SA, Scott T, Bhandari M (2015) Complications following young femoral neck fractures. Injury 46:484–491. 10.1016/J.INJURY.2014.10.01025480307
18. Rogmark C Leonardsson O Hip arthroplasty for the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients Bone Joint J 2016 98–B 291 297 10.1302/0301-620X.98B3.36515 26920951
Rogmark C, Leonardsson O (2016) Hip arthroplasty for the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. Bone Joint J 98–B:291–297. 10.1302/0301-620X.98B3.3651526920951
19. Lewis SR Macey R Stokes J Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022 10.1002/14651858.CD013404.PUB2 35678077
Lewis SR, Macey R, Stokes J et al (2022) Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 10.1002/14651858.CD013404.PUB2. 2:35678077
20. Rogmark C Fenstad AM Leonardsson O Posterior approach and uncemented stems increases the risk of reoperation after hemiarthroplasties in elderly hip fracture patients Acta Orthop 2014 85 18 25 10.3109/17453674.2014.885356 24460108
Rogmark C, Fenstad AM, Leonardsson O et al (2014) Posterior approach and uncemented stems increases the risk of reoperation after hemiarthroplasties in elderly hip fracture patients. Acta Orthop 85:18–25. 10.3109/17453674.2014.88535624460108
21. Yli-Kyyny T Sund R Heinänen M Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures? Acta Orthop 2014 85 49 53 10.3109/17453674.2013.878827 24397746
Yli-Kyyny T, Sund R, Heinänen M et al (2014) Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures? Acta Orthop 85:49–53. 10.3109/17453674.2013.87882724397746
22. Dale H Børsheim S Kristensen TB Fixation, sex, and age: highest risk of revision for uncemented stems in elderly women - data from 66,995 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register Acta Orthop 2020 91 33 41 10.1080/17453674.2019.1682851 31663413
Dale H, Børsheim S, Kristensen TB et al (2020) Fixation, sex, and age: highest risk of revision for uncemented stems in elderly women - data from 66,995 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 91:33–41. 10.1080/17453674.2019.168285131663413
23. Kristensen TB Dybvik E Kristoffersen M Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral Neck fracture? Data from the Norwegian hip fracture Register Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020 478 90 100 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000826 31855192
Kristensen TB, Dybvik E, Kristoffersen M et al (2020) Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral Neck fracture? Data from the Norwegian hip fracture Register. Clin Orthop Relat Res 478:90–100. 10.1097/CORR.000000000000082631855192
24. Okike K Chan PH Prentice HA Association between Uncemented vs cemented hemiarthroplasty and revision surgery among patients with hip fracture JAMA 2020 323 1077 1083 10.1001/JAMA.2020.1067 32181848
Okike K, Chan PH, Prentice HA et al (2020) Association between Uncemented vs cemented hemiarthroplasty and revision surgery among patients with hip fracture. JAMA 323:1077–1083. 10.1001/JAMA.2020.106732181848
25. Fernandez MA Achten J Parsons N Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular hip fracture N Engl J Med 2022 386 521 530 10.1056/NEJMOA2108337 35139272
Fernandez MA, Achten J, Parsons N et al (2022) Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular hip fracture. N Engl J Med 386:521–530. 10.1056/NEJMOA210833735139272
26. Hongisto MT Pihlajamäki H Niemi S Surgical procedures in femoral neck fractures in Finland: a nationwide study between 1998 and 2011 Int Orthop 2014 38 1685 1690 10.1007/s00264-014-2346-6 24756458
Hongisto MT, Pihlajamäki H, Niemi S et al (2014) Surgical procedures in femoral neck fractures in Finland: a nationwide study between 1998 and 2011. Int Orthop 38:1685–1690. 10.1007/s00264-014-2346-624756458
27. Bunyoz KI Malchau E Malchau H Troelsen A Has the use of fixation techniques in THA changed in this decade? The Uncemented Paradox Revisited Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020 478 697 704 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001117 31899744
Bunyoz KI, Malchau E, Malchau H, Troelsen A (2020) Has the use of fixation techniques in THA changed in this decade? The Uncemented Paradox Revisited. Clin Orthop Relat Res 478:697–704. 10.1097/CORR.000000000000111731899744
28. Florschutz AV Langford JR Haidukewych GJ Koval KJ Femoral neck fractures: current management J Orthop Trauma 2015 29 121 129 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000291 25635363
Florschutz AV, Langford JR, Haidukewych GJ, Koval KJ (2015) Femoral neck fractures: current management. J Orthop Trauma 29:121–129. 10.1097/BOT.000000000000029125635363
29. Chen AF Barrington JW Duwelius PJ Trends of femoral Neck fracture treatment using total hip arthroplasty: reported from the American joint replacement Registry J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2022 30 e44 e50 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00132 34192715
Chen AF, Barrington JW, Duwelius PJ et al (2022) Trends of femoral Neck fracture treatment using total hip arthroplasty: reported from the American joint replacement Registry. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 30:e44–e50. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-0013234192715
30. Gausden EB Cross WW Mabry TM Total hip arthroplasty for femoral Neck fracture: what are the contemporary reasons for failure? J Arthroplasty 2021 36 S272 S276 10.1016/J.ARTH.2021.02.008 33736895
Gausden EB, Cross WW, Mabry TM et al (2021) Total hip arthroplasty for femoral Neck fracture: what are the contemporary reasons for failure? J Arthroplasty 36:S272–S276. 10.1016/J.ARTH.2021.02.00833736895
31. Lewis DP Wæver D Thorninger R Donnelly WJ Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip arthroplasty for the management of Displaced Neck of Femur fractures: a systematic review and Meta-analysis J Arthroplasty 2019 34 1837 1843e2 10.1016/J.ARTH.2019.03.070 31060915
Lewis DP, Wæver D, Thorninger R, Donnelly WJ (2019) Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip arthroplasty for the management of Displaced Neck of Femur fractures: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 34:1837–1843e2. 10.1016/J.ARTH.2019.03.07031060915
32. Hip fracture: management, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2023) London: ; Jan 6. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 124.)
33. Parker MJ Cawley S Treatment of the displaced intracapsular fracture for the ‘fitter’ elderly patients: a randomised trial of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for 105 patients Injury 2019 50 2009 2013 10.1016/j.injury.2019.09.018 31543318
Parker MJ, Cawley S (2019) Treatment of the displaced intracapsular fracture for the ‘fitter’ elderly patients: a randomised trial of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for 105 patients. Injury 50:2009–2013. 10.1016/j.injury.2019.09.01831543318
34. Ekhtiari S Gormley J Axelrod DE Total hip arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral Neck fracture: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020 102 1638 1645 10.2106/JBJS.20.00226 32732709
Ekhtiari S, Gormley J, Axelrod DE et al (2020) Total hip arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral Neck fracture: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102:1638–1645. 10.2106/JBJS.20.0022632732709
35. Lewis SR Macey R Parker MJ Arthroplasties for hip fracture in adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2 2022 10.1002/14651858.CD013410.PUB2
Lewis SR, Macey R, Parker MJ et al (2022) Arthroplasties for hip fracture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2. 10.1002/14651858.CD013410.PUB2
36. Miller BJ, Callaghan JJ, Cram P et al (2014) Changing trends in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: A review of the American board of orthopaedic surgery database. J. Bone Jt. Surg. - Am. Vol. 96:e149.1-e149.6
37. Swart E Makhni EC Macaulay W Cost-effectiveness analysis of fixation options for intertrochanteric hip fractures J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014 96 1612 1620 10.2106/JBJS.M.00603 25274786
Swart E, Makhni EC, Macaulay W et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness analysis of fixation options for intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1612–1620. 10.2106/JBJS.M.0060325274786
38. Matre K Havelin LI Gjertsen JE Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian hip fracture Register Injury 2013 44 735 742 10.1016/J.INJURY.2012.12.010 23305689
Matre K, Havelin LI, Gjertsen JE et al (2013) Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian hip fracture Register. Injury 44:735–742. 10.1016/J.INJURY.2012.12.01023305689
39. Schipper IB Steyerberg EW Castelein RM Van Vugt AB Reliability of the AO/ASIF classification for pertrochanteric femoral fractures Acta Orthop Scand 2001 72 36 41 10.1080/000164701753606662 11327411
Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, Van Vugt AB (2001) Reliability of the AO/ASIF classification for pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:36–41. 10.1080/00016470175360666211327411
40. Kim JT Kim HH Kim JH Mid-term survivals after Cementless Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in Elderly patients J Arthroplasty 2018 33 777 782 10.1016/J.ARTH.2017.10.027 29153634
Kim JT, Kim HH, Kim JH et al (2018) Mid-term survivals after Cementless Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in Elderly patients. J Arthroplasty 33:777–782. 10.1016/J.ARTH.2017.10.02729153634
41. Xie Y Zhou H Primary cemented hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly severe osteoporotic patients Injury 2020 51 670 673 10.1016/J.INJURY.2020.01.010 31928710
Xie Y, Zhou H (2020) Primary cemented hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly severe osteoporotic patients. Injury 51:670–673. 10.1016/J.INJURY.2020.01.01031928710
42. Möller M, Wolf O, Bergdahl C et al (2022) The Swedish Fracture Register - ten years of experience and 600,000 fractures collected in a National Quality Register. 10.1186/S12891-022-05062-W. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23:
