Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16;(6):CD001706. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001706.pub4.

Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.

Author information

1
Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK, PE3 6DA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Numerous types of arthroplasties may be used in the surgical treatment of a hip fracture (proximal femoral fracture). The main differences between the implants are in the design of the stems, whether the stem is cemented or uncemented, whether a second articulating joint is included within the prosthesis (bipolar prosthesis), or whether a partial (hemiarthroplasty) or total whole hip replacement is used.

OBJECTIVES:

To review all randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties for the treatment of hip fractures in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (September 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registers (all to September 2009), and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties and their insertion with or without cement, for the treatment of hip fractures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, by use of a 10-item checklist, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS:

Twenty-three trials involving 2861 older and mainly female patients with proximal femoral fractures are included. Cemented prostheses, when compared with uncemented prostheses (6 trials, 899 participants) were associated with a less pain at a year or later and improved mobility. No significant difference in surgical complications was found. One trial of 220 participants compared a hydroxyapatite coated hemiarthroplasty with a cemented prosthesis and reported no notable differences between the two prosthesis. Comparison of unipolar hemiarthroplasty with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (7 trials, 857 participants, 863 fractures) showed no significant differences between the two types of implant. Seven trials involving 734 participants compared hemiarthroplasty with a total hip replacement (THR). Most studies involved cemented implants. Dislocation of the prosthesis was more common with the THR but there was a general trend within these studies to better functional outcome scores for those treated with the THR.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is good evidence that cementing the prostheses in place will reduce post-operative pain and lead to better mobility. From the trials to date there is no evidence of any difference in outcome between bipolar and unipolar prosthesis. There is some evidence that a total hip replacement leads to better functional outcome than a hemiarthroplasty. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.

PMID:
20556753
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD001706.pub4
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center