Evidence based update: open versus closed reduction

Outcomes after operative treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults are fraught with high complications rates including non-union and avascular necrosis. Among the therapeutic controversies that persist is the role of open reduction, which would allow surgeons a direct means to improve the quality of reduction, a predictor of successful treatment. We performed a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes (nonunion, avascular necrosis, and deep infection) after open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) to closed reduction with internal fixation (CRIF) of acute (surgery performed less than 6 weeks from injury) femoral neck fractures in young adults (average age of 50 or younger) followed for at least one year. Despite the large literature investigating outcomes after operative treatment of femoral neck fracture, relatively few studies aimed to determine the relative risk of complications associated with method of reduction. Therefore, both observational and randomised studies as well as case series with clear descriptions of surgical approach and outcomes were included. We identified 21 studies that matched our inclusion criteria. The incidence of nonunion was 11.6% in closed reduction and 14.9% in the open reduction group (P=0.25). The incidence of avascular necrosis for CRIF and ORIF were 17.2% and 17.7% respectively (P=0.91). The incidence of deep wound infection was 0.49% in the closed reduction group and 3.9% in the open reduction group (P=0.0019). Meta-analysis of risk ratios estimated from six of the studies with comparative data revealed no significant difference in the incidence of nonunion, avascular necrosis or total complications between the two reduction techniques. In summary, systematic review of the literature reveals a lack of evidence in support of ORIF versus CRIF as a means of treating displaced femoral neck fractures in young patients with respect to union and avascular necrosis; however, the incidence of surgical site infections may be lower with CRIF. Firm conclusions cannot be drawn given the lack of high quality prospective studies and patient reported outcomes. In the future, randomised controlled trials will be required to test the effect of reduction method.