
==== Front
Hip Pelvis
Hip Pelvis
Hip Pelvis
Hip & Pelvis
2287-3260
2287-3279
Korean Hip Society

39210574
10.5371/hp.2024.36.3.211
hp-36-3-211
Original Article
The Superior Approach in Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: A Comparative Analysis with the Posterior Approach
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1008-6517
Kamo Kenta MD
Department of Orthopaedics Surgery, Yamaguchi Red Cross Hospital, Yamaguchi, Japan
Correspondence to: Kenta Kamo, MD https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1008-6517 Department of Orthopaedics Surgery, Yamaguchi Red Cross Hospital, 53-1 Yahatababa, Yamaguchi 753-8519, Japan E-mail: kamoknts@gaea.ocn.ne.jp
1 9 2024
1 9 2024
1 9 2024
36 3 211217
17 11 2023
23 1 2024
24 1 2024
© Korean Hip Society
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose

The concept of a superior approach (SA) involves the use of a tissue-sparing posterior approach (PA), with exposure of the piriformis muscle and gluteus medius/minimus muscles. The objective of this study was to clarify the features of hip hemiarthroplasty (HA) using a SA in regard to early recovery and mid-term outcomes, with a comparison of the outcomes of SA-HAs and HAs using a PA (PA-HAs).

Materials and Methods

A total of 120 HAs for treatment of primary femoral neck fracture with a healthy opposite hip joint were performed in our hospital from 2013 to 2018. Propensity score matching in regard to age, sex, body mass index, walking ability before injury, place of residence, time to surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status was performed for 79 patients with SA-HAs and 41 patients with PA-HAs. The final analysis included 34 patients who underwent SA-HAs and 34 patients who underwent PA-HAs.

Results

The duration of surgery was 57.1 minutes and 72.1 minutes (P=0.001) for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively. The scores for walking ability at postoperative one week were 4.9±1.4 and 4.2±1.0 (P=0.021) for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively. The Barthel index (BI) at the start of rehabilitation was 26.2±18.7 and 17.4±16.3 (P=0.042) for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively. The 4-year complication-free survival rates were 74.2% and 56.3% for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively (P=0.310).

Conclusion

SA-HA can be performed without torsion of the muscles and ligaments around the hip joint. Early recovery of walking ability and BI was a significant feature of SA-HAs.

Hip hemiarthroplasty
Femoral neck fracture
Superior approach
Posterior approach
Barthel index
Funding No funding to declare.
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Because it can reduce complications and result in early recovery, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has recently gained popularity as an approach to performance of hip hemiarthroplasty (HA) for treatment of femoral neck fractures (FNFs)1-4). In addition, the Barthel index (BI) at discharge has been reported as a prognosis predictor5,6). A higher BI score at discharge showed an association with a good prognosis.

The superior approach (SA) to performance of HA is a minimally invasive posterior approach (PA)7-9). The PA is a conventional approach. A surgical technique for performance of the PA was described by Moore in 195710). The short external rotator muscles (piriformis muscle, conjoined tendon, and external obturator muscle) and quadratus femoris muscle were resected. The hip joint was flexed at 90° and internally rotated to 90°. However, use of these methods resulted in a higher incidence of postoperative dislocations11). Use of the SA enables preservation of short external rotator muscles, reaching the hip joints between the piriformis muscles and the gluteus medius and minimus muscles, and does not involve an over-ranged hip position8). No study comparing early recovery and prognosis for SA-HAs and PA-HAs for treatment of FNFs has been reported.

The objective of this study was to clarify the features of SA-HAs, with comparison of the outcomes of SA-HAs and PA-HAs in terms of early recovery and mid-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 85 SA-HAs and 45 PA-HAs were performed at our hospital for treatment of FNFs between June 2013 and May 2018. Ten patients who had already undergone surgery on the contralateral hip joint were excluded. A total of 120 HAs performed for treatment of a primary FNF with a healthy opposite hip joint were included in this retrospective survey.

The results of a previous survey showed that 23% of patients who underwent HAs did not reach the gait required for evaluation of walking ability. Injury at home can influence walking ability12). Thus, propensity score matching in regard to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), walking ability before injury, injury at home, time to surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status (ASA-PS) between 79 SA-HA patients and 41 PA-HA patients was performed. The final analysis of the time to surgery, operation duration, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative walking ability, hospital stay, BI (at the start of postoperative rehabilitation and discharge), follow-up period, and complications (postoperative dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, sciatic nerve injury, acetabular erosions, superficial surgical site infection, wound complications, contralateral fractures, and death), including cerebrovascular disorders and other fractures included 34 patients who underwent SA-HAs and 34 patients who underwent PA-HAs. Other fractures included any other fractures, except periprosthetic and contralateral fractures.

Assessment of the complication-free survival rate and the periprosthetic fracture-free survival rate was performed for 120 patients before matching and 68 patients before and after matching. The endpoints were the complications described above and the periprosthetic fracture, respectively. This study received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Yamaguchi Red Cross Hospital (approval No. H27-11). The written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Walking ability was 8-10 (walking independence), according to the Hospital for Special Surgery-Hip Rating System (HSS)13). The scores were as follows: 10=no support or an appreciable limp and unrestricted travel distance; 8=no support with a limp or one support with no limp; 6=no support and less than one block (50 m) traveled distance, one support and up to five blocks (250 m) traveled distance, or bilateral support and unrestricted travel distance; 4=no support and housebound, one support with less than one block (50 m) traveled distance, or bilateral support and less than three blocks (150 m) traveled distance; 2=wheelchair or transfer activities with a walker; and 0=bedridden. This system uses a block as the walking distance index. One block was defined as 50 m.

1. Surgeons

PA-HAs were performed by six surgeons, four of whom were young (≤6 years), and two who were experienced. SA-HAs were performed by seven surgeons. Among seven surgeons, six surgeons were young (≤6 years) and one surgeon was experienced. In this survey, both the PA and SA were used by two of the young surgeons.

2. Surgery

When performing SA, the patient was placed in the lateral decubitus position. The hip joint position was 60°-70° flexion, maximum abduction, and 10°-20° internal rotation (sleep position)14). A skin incision was made from the tip of the greater trochanter 8-12 cm proximal to the extended femoral axis, and the gluteus maximus was bluntly divided. The gluteus medius muscles were retracted anteriorly and the piriformis muscles were retracted posteriorly. The gluteus minimus was then retracted anteriorly with the gluteus medius to expose the capsules. After cutting the capsule, the femur was lifted over the femoral head (overhead lift) to allow for easy rasping. A neck cut was made in the rasp placed on the femur to prevent intraoperative femoral fracture, followed by removal of the femoral head. A trial reduction was performed, followed by implantation. Overrange of the hip joint did not occur during surgery. Three instruments were used: an outer head for attachment of the inner head within the acetabular fossa, a trial outer head with a groove to facilitate trial reduction, and flat broaches to facilitate performance of a neck osteotomy, leaving the broach in place7,8). Use of these devices can facilitate performance of SA-HA procedures (Fig. 1).

When using the PA, the piriformis, conjoined tendon, and external obturators were resected along with repair of the piriformis muscle and conjoined tendon post-implantation. The hip was positioned at 90° of flexion, maximum abduction, and 90° of internal rotation.

3. Statistical Analysis

The t-test was used for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables using Easy R software (EZR, ver. 1.52; Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University)15). In propensity score matching, multivariate analysis was used for analysis of patient characteristics (age, sex, BMI, walking ability before injury, injury at home, time to surgery, and ASA-PS). Complications was the endpoint for determining the survival rate. Survival analyses were performed using postoperative dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, contralateral fractures, death, and other fractures as factors described in the Kaplan–Meier plot, and an evaluation of statistical differences between the two survival curves was performed using the log-rank test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the factors that influenced BI at discharge, which included age, approach, injury at home, walking ability before injury, and sex.

RESULTS

The time to surgery was longer (P=0.001) and the complication rate was lower (P=0.037) for SA-HAs compared with PA-HAs (Table 1). No conversion of SA to PA was observed. The 4-year complication-free survival rates were 71.7% and 48.7% for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively (P=0.054; Fig. 2). The 4-year periprosthetic fracture-free survival rates were 90.8% and 76.1% for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively (P=0.446; Fig. 3).

1. Outcomes of Propensity Score Matching

The duration of surgery was 57.1 minutes and 72.1 minutes (P=0.001) for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively. The scores for walking ability at postoperative one week were 4.9±1.4 and 4.2±1.0 (P=0.021) for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively. The BIs at the start of rehabilitation were 26.2±18.7 and 17.4±16.3 (P=0.042) for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively (Table 2). The 4-year complication-free survival rates were 74.2% and 56.3% for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively (P=0.310, Fig. 2). The 4-year periprosthetic fracture-free survival rates were 91.6% and 80.7% for SA-HAs and PA-HAs, respectively (P=0.579; Fig. 3).

2. Outcomes of Multiple Regression Analysis

The BI at discharge was influenced by female sex (P=0.012), SA (P=0.028), injury at home (P=0.001), and walking ability before injury (P<0.01) (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

Patients who underwent SA-HAs showed significantly earlier recovery in terms of walking ability and BI at the start of postoperative rehabilitation and discharge. The 4-year complication-free survival rates were 74.2% and 56.3% for the SA-HAs and PA-HAs groups, respectively (P=0.310). Multivariate analysis showed that SA contributed to higher BI at discharge.

However, few studies on recovery after HAs have been reported. Tsukada and Wakui3) reported that use of HA with a direct anterior approach (DAA) resulted in earlier recovery of walking compared with PA-HA, HSS walking ability 5.3±1.5 and 4.2±2.3 at postoperative one month. However, no differences in walking ability were observed at postoperative one year. DAA was performed using a minimally invasive anterior supine approach. Soft tissue sparing can lead to early recovery. When using the PA, testing of spare short external rotators was performed (Table 4)7,8,10,16). The short external rotator muscles were preserved in the SA-HA group. Compression of the surface of the hip joint by external rotational torque can lead to hip stability. In particular, the external rotator muscles play an important role during performance of pelvic and trunk rotational activities while standing on one leg17). Postoperative unrestricted motion and early recovery can be achieved by preserving surrounding tissues.

The BI at discharge is an important index for predicting prognosis5,6). Renken et al.1) reported that the modified BI score was higher for DAA-HA compared with HA using the anterolaretal supine approach, 20±13.6 and 10±10.2 at postoperative five days. The findings of our study showed that BI at discharge was influenced by younger age, female sex, injury at home, walking ability before injury, and SA. Among these factors, SA, a surgical approach, was the only factor that affected the device after injury. The findings of this study indicate that there are differences in the processes of recovery for SA and PA. Depending on the surgical approach, the goals of rehabilitation should include achievement of early recovery of walking and BI.

Before propensity score matching, the complication rate was lower and the survival rate was higher for SA-HAs than PA-HAs. This result suggests that use of a muscle-sparing approach to HA may be a predictor of prognosis. Albumin level, male sex, age, and cognitive impairment were also predictors of prognosis18-21). In this study, cerebrovascular disease and fractures were a cause of bedridden conditions and influenced healthy life expectancy and were therefore included as complications. Thus, preventing patients from becoming bedridden after a fracture is important. Use of a multidisciplinary approach and MIS-HA has led to a decrease in complications, resulting in early recovery22,23).

This study had some limitations. The first issue was the choice of approach. Selection of PA or SA by surgeons was based on their surgical skill maturity. They first mastered the PA and then employed the SA. Thus, most were accustomed to using the PA but were unfamiliar with the SA. The learning curve for SA-HAs plateaued at approximately 10 cases24). In this study, of the 10 cases, SA-HAs were not performed by any of the young surgeons. Another limitation was that the propensity score analysis did not control for unmeasured confounders. Data on comorbidities were not collected and prescribed drugs were excluded. Alternatively, we believe that the scores for injury at home, walking ability before injury, and ASA-PS and time to surgery days (TTS) reflected the patients’ general condition. Before propensity score matching, TTS was longer for SA-HAs. The reasons for TTS over a week were fever (pneumonia and urinary tract infection), except in two cases, cerebrovascular bleeding and refusal to undergo surgery. Under these poor general conditions, the surgeons might have chosen the SA due to lack of a postoperative contraindicated limb position. Third, total hip arthroplasties (THAs) were excluded. In our hospital, THAs for treatment of FNFs is performed in patients aged <60 years or in those with coxarthrosis, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore, these outcomes are limited to SA-HAs and generalizing to THAs may not be possible. When performing SA-THA, preparation of the acetabulum is difficult, and the short external rotator muscles are not preserved in all cases. Otherwise, the findings of this study demonstrated that preserving the short external rotator muscles was important for achievement of early recovery after HAs because the short external rotator muscles were preserved in all SA-HAs.

CONCLUSION

SA-HA is performed without torsion of the muscles or ligaments surrounding the hip joint. A significant feature of SA-HAs was the early recovery of walking ability and BI at the start of postoperative rehabilitation. Use of SA-HAs may lead to improved prognosis for patients with FNFs.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all medical staff who assisted us in conduct of this research.

Fig. 1 Hip hemiarthroplasty surgery using a superior approach. (A) A flat broach to facilitate neck osteotomy, leaving the broach in place. (B) A trial outer head with a groove to facilitate trial reduction. (C) Trial reduction. (D) After placement. P: piriformis muscle, M: gluteus medius.

Fig. 2 Complication free survival rate before and after matching, compared with PA and SA. PA: posterior approach, SA: superior approach.

Fig. 3 Periprosthetic fracture free survival rate before and after matching, compared with PA and SA. PA: posterior approach, SA: superior approach.

Table 1 Patients Characteristics and Complications before the Propensity Score Matching

	PA (n=41)	SA (n=79)	P-value	
Age (yr)	83.4±6.7	81.4±9.7	0.224	
Sex, female	34 (82.9)	55 (69.6)	0.129	
BMI (kg/m2)	20.8±3.3	20.1±3.9	0.344	
Injury at home	25 (61.0)	53 (67.1)	0.548	
Walking ability before injury	8.2±2.6	7.5±2.6	0.121	
Time to surgery days (day)	1.8±1.5	3.1±3.0	0.001	
Time to surgery days <2 days	33 (80.5)	49 (62.0)	0.042	
ASA-PS, I/II/III/IV	0/4/36/1	1/13/63/2	0.826	
Surgeons, young/experienced	5/2	7/1	0.569	
Young surgeons operations	32 (78.0)	62 (78.5)	>0.999	
Follow-up (day)	872±827	902±768	0.843	
Total complications	17 (41.5)	18 (22.8)	0.037	
IOF	2 (4.9)	1 (1.3)	0.269	
Sciatic nerve injury	0	0	-	
Postoperative dislocation	0	0	-	
Periprosthetic fracture	3 (7.3)	6 (7.6)	>0.999	
Contralateral fracture	4 (9.8)	3 (3.8)	0.229	
Death	3 (7.3)	4 (5.1)	0.689	
DVT	0	1 (1.3)	>0.999	
Superficial surgical site infection	0	0	-	
Wound complication	0	0	-	
Other fractures	4 (9.8)	2 (2.5)	0.178	
AE	0	1 (1.3)	>0.999	
CVD	1 (2.4)	0	0.342	
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, number (%), or number only.

PA: posterior approach, SA: superior approach, BMI: body mass index, ASA-PS: American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status, IOF: intraoperative fracture, DVT: deep venous thrombosis, AE: acetabular erosion, CVD: cerebrovascular disease.

Table 2 Patients Characteristics and Outcomes after the Propensity Score Matching

	PA (n=34)	SA (n=34)	P-value	SMD	
Age (yr)	84.1±5.8	80.7±9.5	0.077	0.266	
Sex, female	27 (79.4)	28 (82.4)	>0.999	0.155	
BMI (kg/m2)	20.3±3.2	20.5±3.8	0.862	0.034	
Injury at home	22 (64.7)	22 (64.7)	>0.999	<0.001	
Walking ability before injury	8.1±2.6	8.5±2.2	0.486	0.024	
Time to surgery days (day)	2.1±1.4	1.7±1.1	0.253	0.041	
ASA-PS, I/II/III/IV	0/4/30/0	0/9/25/0	0.217	0.372	
Time (min)	72.1±21.8	57.1±14.2	0.001		
Bleeding (g)	113.2±125.4	134.4±74.2	0.400		
Surgeons, young/experienced	4/2	5/1	>0.999		
Young surgeons operations	26 (76.5)	22 (64.7)	0.425		
Walking ability score at	
PO 1 week	4.2±1.0	4.9±1.4	0.021		
PO 2 weeks	4.7±1.5	6.1±2.1	0.004		
Hospital stay (day)	34.3±20.0	31.5±14.6	0.507		
Discharge to home	12 (35.3)	17 (50.0)	0.327		
Barthel index	
At the start	17.4±16.3	26.2±18.7	0.042		
At the discharge	58.7±33.2	74.9±25.7	0.028		
Follow-up (day)	855.3±813.1	1,102.2±770.2	0.203		
Total complications	13 (38.2)	11 (32.4)	0.800		
IOF	2 (5.9)	1 (2.9)	>0.999		
Peri-prosthetic fractures	3 (8.8)	3 (8.8)	>0.999		
Contralateral fractures	2 (5.9)	2 (5.9)	>0.999		
Death	3 (8.8)	2 (5.9)	>0.999		
DVT	0	1 (2.9)	>0.999		
Other fractures	2 (5.9)	2 (5.9)	>0.999		
CVD	1 (2.9)	0	>0.999		
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

PA: posterior approach, SA: superior approach, SMD: standardized mean difference, BMI: body mass index, ASA-PS: American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status, PO: postoperative, IOF: intraoperative fracture, DVT: deep venous thrombosis, CVD: cerebrovascular disease.

Table 3 Factors to Influence Barthel Index at Discharge

	Estimate	Standard error	t value	P-value	
Age	–0.253	–1.098 to 0.590	–0.599	0.551	
SA	13.0	1.444 to 24.500	2.249	0.028	
Injury at home	21.8	8.796 to 34.900	3.348	0.001	
Walking ability before injury	4.3	1.533 to 7.129	3.094	0.003	
Sex, male	–18.4	–32.800 to –4.140	–2.576	0.012	
SA: superior approach.

Table 4 The Feature of the Posterior Approach and the Muscle Sparing Posterior Approaches

Approach	Resection of short rotator muscles	ISFL resection	Risk of sciatic nerve injury	Dislocated hip position	
Piriformis	Conjoined tendon	External obturator	Quadratus	
Posterior (1957)10)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Proximal 1/3	Superior
Inferior	High	Yes	
External rotator preserved (2008)16)	No	IG	Yes	No	Inferior	High	Yes	
Superior (2017)7,8)	No	No	No	No	Superior	Low	No	
ISFL: ischiofemoral ligaments, IG: inferior gemellus.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
==== Refs
References

1 Renken F Renken S Paech A Wenzl M Unger A Schulz AP 2012 Early functional results after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture: a randomized comparison between a minimal invasive and a conventional approach BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13 141 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-13-141 10.1186/1471-2474-13-141 22873207
2 Schneider K Audigé L Kuehnel SP Helmy N 2012 The direct anterior approach in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures Int Orthop 36 1773 81 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1535-4 10.1007/s00264-012-1535-4 22527335
3 Tsukada S Wakui M 2010 Minimally invasive intermuscular approach does not improve outcomes in bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture J Orthop Sci 15 753 7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-010-1541-6 10.1007/s00776-010-1541-6 21116892
4 Pala E Trono M Bitonti A Lucidi G 2016 Hip hemiarthroplasty for femur neck fractures: minimally invasive direct anterior approach versus postero-lateral approach Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26 423 7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1767-x 10.1007/s00590-016-1767-x 27026091
5 Ishidou Y Koriyama C Kakoi H 2017 Predictive factors of mortality and deterioration in performance of activities of daily living after hip fracture surgery in Kagoshima, Japan Geriatr Gerontol Int 17 391 401 https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12718 10.1111/ggi.12718 26822837
6 Kimura A Matsumoto Y Wakata Y 2019 Predictive factors of mortality of patients with fragility hip fractures at 1 year after discharge: a multicenter, retrospective study in the northern Kyushu district of Japan J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 27 2309499019866965 https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019866965 10.1177/2309499019866965 31466509
7 Kamo K Kido H Kido S Kiyohara T Ota M 2017 [The concept of the superior approach for hip arthroplasty] Jpn J Joint Dis 36 457 60 Japanese
8 Kamo K Kido H Kido S 2019 Comparison of the incidence of intra-operative fractures in hip hemi-arthroplasty performed in supine and lateral positions Hip Pelvis 31 33 9 https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2019.31.1.33 10.5371/hp.2019.31.1.33 30899713
9 Bodrogi AW Sciortino R Fitch DA Gofton W 2016 Use of the supercapsular percutaneously assisted total hip approach for femoral neck fractures: surgical technique and case series J Orthop Surg Res 11 113 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0446-2 10.1186/s13018-016-0446-2 27733183
10 Moore AT 1957 The self-locking metal hip prosthesis J Bone Joint Surg Am 39-A 811 27 10.2106/00004623-195739040-00005 13438939
11 van der Sijp MPL van Delft D Krijnen P Niggebrugge AHP Schipper IB 2018 Surgical approaches and hemiarthroplasty outcomes for femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis J Arthroplasty 33 1617 27.e9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.029 10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.029 29398259
12 Yokota R Kawano S Kohchi N 2021 [Gait evaluation after hip hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture] Hip Joint 47 S15 9 Japanese
13 Salvati EA Wilson PD Jr 1973 Long-term results of femoral-head replacement J Bone Joint Surg Am 55 516 24 10.2106/00004623-197355030-00007 4703204
14 Murphy SB 2004 Technique of tissue-preserving, minimally-invasive total hip arthroplasty using a superior capsulotomy Oper Tech Orthop 14 94 101 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.oto.2004.04.003 10.1053/j.oto.2004.04.003
15 Kanda Y 2013 Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software 'EZR' for medical statistics Bone Marrow Transplant 48 452 8 https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244 10.1038/bmt.2012.244 23208313
16 Kim YS Kwon SY Sun DH Han SK Maloney WJ 2008 Modified posterior approach to total hip arthroplasty to enhance joint stability Clin Orthop Relat Res 466 294 9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0056-8 10.1007/s11999-007-0056-8 18196409
17 Neumann DA 2010 Kinesiology of the hip: a focus on muscular actions J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40 82 94 https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2010.3025 10.2519/jospt.2010.3025 20118525
18 Juhász K Boncz I Patczai B Mintál T Sebestyén A 2016 Risk factors for contralateral hip fractures following femoral neck fractures in elderly: analysis of the Hungarian nationwide health insurance database Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 27 146 52 10.5606/ehc.2016.30 27902169
19 Higashikawa T Shigemoto K Goshima K 2020 Mortality and the risk factors in elderly female patients with femoral neck and trochanteric fractures J Clin Med Res 12 668 73 https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4292 10.14740/jocmr4292 33029274
20 Liu Y Zhang CW Zhao XD 2020 Long-term survival of femoral neck fracture patients aged over ninety years: arthroplasty compared with nonoperative treatment BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21 217 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03249-7 10.1186/s12891-020-03249-7 32268893
21 Kristensen TB Dybvik E Kristoffersen M 2020 Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register Clin Orthop Relat Res 478 90 100 https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000826 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000826 31855192
22 Stenvall M Olofsson B Nyberg L Lundström M Gustafson Y 2007 Improved performance in activities of daily living and mobility after a multidisciplinary postoperative rehabilitation in older people with femoral neck fracture: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up J Rehabil Med 39 232 8 https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0045 10.2340/16501977-0045 17468792
23 Dy CJ Dossous PM Ton QV Hollenberg JP Lorich DG Lane JM 2011 Does a multidisciplinary team decrease complications in male patients with hip fractures? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469 1919 24 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1825-y 10.1007/s11999-011-1825-y 21350887
24 Kamo K 2017 [Learning curve of hip hemi-arthroplasty using the superior approach: comparison with the direct anterior approach] Hip Joint 43 463 5 Japanese
