Table 3 Comparison of radiographic data between the two groups
Characteristics | Failure group (n = 25) | Healing group (n = 108) | U value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Pauwels classification | Â | Â | 1157 | 0.231a |
 I | 3 (12%) | 24 (22.2%) |  |  |
 II | 11 (44%) | 47 (43.5%) |  |  |
 III | 11 (44%) | 37 (34.3%) |  |  |
Garden classification | Â | Â | 934 | 0.01 |
 II | 1 (4%) | 27 (25%) |  |  |
 III | 8 (32%) | 38 (35.2%) |  |  |
 IV | 16 (64%) | 43 (39.8%) |  |  |
Fracture anatomical classification | Â | Â | 1228 | 0.459 |
 Subcapital | 10 (40%) | 37 (34.3%) |  |  |
 Transcervical | 6 (24%) | 10 (9.3%) |  |  |
 Cervicotrochanteric | 4 (16%) | 47 (43.5%) |  |  |
 Basicervical | 5 (20%) | 14 (12.9%) |  |  |