The epidemiology and functional outcomes of operative fixation of extracapsular proximal femoral fractures (AO 31-A) in young adults

  • D. N. Ramoutar
  • P. Kodumuri
  • J. N. Rodrigues
  • S. Olewicz
  • C. G. Moran
  • B. J. Ollivere
  • D. P. Forward
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Original Article • HIP - FRACTURES


Proximal femoral fractures in adults under 50 years are not as common as in the elderly, but may have just as significant an impact. There is little in the literature describing the functional outcomes of fixation in this age group. Our aim was to assess the clinical and functional outcomes of operative management of extracapsular proximal femoral fractures (AO 31-A) in the young adult (<50 years). Consecutive skeletally mature patients <50 years undergoing operative fixation of these fractures were obtained from a prospective database over a 12-year period. Complications and mortality data were obtained from this database and case note review. Outcome scores were obtained via postal questionnaires. Eighty-eight patients were included in the study of which 74 (84%) had fixation with the dynamic hip screw. The mean age was 39 years (range 17–50) with a male preponderance (73.8%). Mean hospital stay was 14 days (range 2–94). Seventeen (19.3%) patients had died at a mean of 40 months from their operation date. The 1-year mortality was 4.5%. There were five complications (5.7%). SF-36 and EuroQol 5D scores showed that 5–10% had severe problems with a 20% decrease in quality of life compared to population norms. The biggest differences were in the physical function modalities. One-third had fair to poor hip function as assessed by the Oxford Hip Score. Though these injuries are relatively rare in this age group, they do have significant mortality and functional impairment reflecting a higher energy of injury rather than the frailty seen in the elderly.


Young adult hip fracture Proximal femur Extracapsular fracture 



Approval for the project was granted by the institutional research and audit department (Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust) as part of a clinical audit.

Author contributions

DN Ramoutar, corresponding author, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. P Kodumuri collected the data and wrote the manuscript. JN Rodrigues performed statistical analyses and wrote the manuscript. S Olewicz collected the data. CG Moran and BJ Ollivere, senior authors, wrote and edited the manuscript. DP Forward, senior author, analysed the data and wrote and edited the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    White SM, Griffiths R (2011) Projected incidence of proximal femoral fracture in England: a report from the NHS hip fracture anaesthesia network (HIPFAN). Injury 42(11):1230–1233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verettas DA, Galanis B, Kazakos K et al (2002) Fractures of the proximal part of the femur in patients under 50 years of age. Injury 33(1):41–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Ani AN, Neander G, Samuelsson B et al (2013) Risk factors for osteoporosis are common in young and middle-aged patients with femoral neck fractures regardless of trauma mechanism. Acta Orthop 84(1):54–59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Protzman RR, Burkhalter WE (1976) Femoral-neck fractures in young adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58(5):689–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller AG, Bercik MJ, Ong A (2011) Nonagenarian hip fracture: treatment and complications. J Trauma 72(5):1411–1415Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davidovitch RI, Jordan CJ, Egol KA et al (2010) Challenges in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the nonelderly adult. J Trauma 68(1):236–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Tornetta P et al (2005) Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. An international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(9):2122–2130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ly TV, Swiontkowski MF (2008) Treatment of femoral neck fractures in young adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(10):2254–2266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang HK, Su YP, Chen CM et al (2010) Displaced femoral neck fractures in young adults treated with closed reduction and internal fixation. Orthopedics 33(12):873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10. Accessed on 16 May 2016
  11. 11. Accessed on 16 May 2016
  12. 12.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES et al (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 13:890–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A et al (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S et al (1999) Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(1):46–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V (2006) Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 26:410–420CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C et al (1998) Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316(7133):736–741CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM et al (1995) Hip fractures in adults younger than 50 years of age. Epidemiology and results. Clin Orthop 312:238–246Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parker MJ, Handoll HHG (2010) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane database of systematic reviews; 9: CD000093Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Roche JJ, Wenn RT, Sahota O et al (2005) Effect of comorbidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ 331(7529):1374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pillai A, Eranki V, Shenoy R et al (2011) Age related incidence and early outcomes of hip fractures: a prospective cohort study of 1177 patients. J Orthop Surg Res 6:5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chow A, Mayer EK, Darzi AW et al (2009) Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery 146(3):435–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jonnes C, Shishir SM, Najimudeen S (2016) Type II intertrochanteric fractures: proximal femoral nailing (PFN) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS). Arch Bone Jt Surg 4(1):23–28PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parker MJ, Bowers TR, Pryor GA (2012) Sliding hip screw versus the Targon PF nail in the treatment of trochanteric fractures of the hip: a randomised trial of 600 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 94(3):391–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Wozasek GE, Vécsei V (2008) Femoral shortening after surgical treatment of trochanteric fractures in nongeriatric patients. J Trauma 64(4):982–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fang C, Gudushauri P, Wong TM, Lau TW, Pun T, Leung F (2016) Increased fracture collapse after intertrochanteric fractures treated by the dynamic hip screw adversely affects walking ability but not survival. BioMed Res Int 2016:8. doi: 10.1155/2016/4175092 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Litwin MS, McGuigan KA (1999) Accuracy of recall in health-related quality-of-life assessment among men treated for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17(9):2882–2888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mishra V, Thomas G, Sibly TF (2004) Results of displaced subcapital fractures treated by primary total hip replacement. Injury 35(2):157–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K et al (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1010–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M (2009) Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop 467(4):958–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. N. Ramoutar
    • 1
  • P. Kodumuri
    • 1
  • J. N. Rodrigues
    • 1
  • S. Olewicz
    • 1
  • C. G. Moran
    • 1
  • B. J. Ollivere
    • 1
  • D. P. Forward
    • 1
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
  1. 1.ST8 Trauma and Orthopaedics, Department of Trauma and OrthopaedicsQueen’s Medical CentreNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations