Hemiarthroplasty is the most commonly used treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. There is limited evidence in the literature of improved functional outcome with cemented implants, although serious cement-related complications have been reported. We performed a randomized, controlled trial in patients 70 years and older comparing a cemented implant (112 hips) with an uncemented, hydroxyapatite-coated implant (108 hips), both with a bipolar head. The mean Harris hip score showed equivalence between the groups, with 70.9 in the cemented group and 72.1 in the uncemented group after 3 months (mean difference, 1.2) and 78.9 and 79.8 after 12 months (mean difference, 0.9). In the uncemented group, the mean duration of surgery was 12.4 minutes shorter and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 89 mL less. The Barthel Index and EQ-5D scores did not show any differences between the groups. The rates of complications and mortality were similar between groups. Both arthroplasties may be used with good results after displaced femoral neck fractures.
Background Displaced femoral neck fractures usually are treated with hemiarthroplasty. However, the degree to which the design of the implant used (cemented or uncemented) affects the outcome is not known and may be therapeutically important. Questions/purposes In this randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare cemented with cementless fixation in bipolar hemiarthroplasties at 5 years in terms of (1) Harris hip scores; (2) femoral fractures; (3) overall health outcomes using the Barthel Index and EQ-5D scores; and (4) complications, reoperations, and mortality since our earlier report on this cohort at 1-year followup. Methods We present followup at a median of 5 years after surgery (range, 56-65 months) from a randomized trial comparing a cemented hemiarthroplasty (112 hips) with an uncemented, hydroxyapatite-coated hemiarthroplasty (108 hips), both with a bipolar head. Results were previously reported at 1-year followup. Harris hip scores, Barthel Index, and EQ-5D scores were assessed by one research nurse and one orthopaedic surgeon. Complications and reoperations were determined by chart review and radiographs examined by three orthopaedic surgeons. Sixty patients (56%) had died in the cemented group and 63 (60%) in the uncemented group. Respectively, three and two patients (2.7% and 1.9%) were completely lost to followup. Results Harris hip scores at 5 years were higher in the uncemented group than in the cemented group (86.2 versus 76.3; mean difference 9.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-17.9). The prevalence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures was 7.4% in the uncemented group and 0.9% in the cemented group (hazard ratio [HR], 9.3; 95% CI, 1.16-74.5). Barthel Index and EQ-5D scores were not different between the groups. Between 1 and 5 years, we found no additional infections or dislocations. The mortality rate was not different between the groups (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.82-1.7).
Background: Elderly patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture treated with hip arthroplasty may have better function than those treated with internal fixation. We hypothesized that hemiarthroplasty would be superior to screw fixation with regard to hip function, mobility, pain, quality of life, and the risk of a reoperation in elderly patients with a nondisplaced femoral neck fracture. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT), Norwegian patients ≥70 years of age with a nondisplaced (valgus impacted or truly nondisplaced) femoral neck fracture were allocated to screw fixation or hemiarthroplasty. Assessors blinded to the type of treatment evaluated hip function with the Harris hip score (HHS) as the primary outcome as well as on the basis of mobility assessed with the timed “Up & Go” (TUG) test, pain as assessed on a numerical rating scale, and quality of life as assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level (EQ-5D) at 3, 12, and 24 months postsurgery. Results, including reoperations, were assessed with intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Between February 6, 2012, and February 6, 2015, 111 patients were allocated to screw fixation and 108, to hemiarthroplasty. At the time of follow-up, there was no significant difference in hip function between the screw fixation and hemiarthroplasty groups, with a 24-month HHS (and standard deviation) of 74 ± 19 and 76 ± 17, respectively, and an adjusted mean difference of −2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = −6 to 3; p = 0.499). Patients allocated to hemiarthroplasty were more mobile than those allocated to screw fixation (24-month TUG = 16.6 ± 9.5 versus 20.4 ± 12.8 seconds; adjusted mean difference = 6.2 seconds [95% CI = 1.9 to 10.5 seconds]; p = 0.004). Furthermore, screw fixation was a risk factor for a major reoperation, which was performed in 20% (22) of 110 patients who underwent screw fixation versus 5% (5) of 108 who underwent hemiarthroplasty (relative risk reduction [RRR] = 3.3 [95% CI = 0.7 to 10.0]; number needed to harm [NNH] = 6.5; p = 0.002). The 24-month mortality rate was 36% (40 of 111) for patients allocated to internal fixation and 26% (28 of 108) for those allocated to hemiarthroplasty (RRR = 0.4 [95% CI = −0.1 to 1.1]; p = 0.11). Two patients were lost to follow-up. Conclusions: In this multicenter RCT, hemiarthroplasty was not found to be superior to screw fixation in reestablishing hip function as measured by the HHS (the primary outcome). However, hemiarthroplasty led to improved mobility and fewer major reoperations. The findings suggest that certain elderly patients with a nondisplaced femoral neck fracture may benefit from being treated with a latest-generation hemiarthroplasty rather than screw fixation. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.