Open Access

Comparison of arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis for displaced femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis

  • Feng-Jen Tseng1, 2,
  • Wei-Tso Chia3,
  • Ru-Yu Pan4,
  • Leou-Chyr Lin4,
  • Hsian-Chung Shen4,
  • Chih-Hung Wang5,
  • Jia-Fwu Shyu6 and
  • Ching-Feng Weng1Email author
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research201712:131

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0629-5

Received: 17 October 2016

Accepted: 19 August 2017

Published: 15 September 2017

Abstract

Background

This meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes of arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis for displaced femoral neck fractures.

Methods

Meta-analysis was performed on the difference in revision rate and overall mortality between participants undergoing osteosynthesis vs. total hip arthroplasty (THA), osteosynthesis vs. hemiarthroplasty (HA), or THA vs. HA.

Results

Pooled direct and indirect results indicated no significant difference in mortality between THA and HA (pooled OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.38; P = 0.556), between THA and osteosynthesis (pooled OR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.99; P = 0.553), and between HA and osteosynthesis (pooled OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.74; P = 0.304). Pooled direct and indirect results indicated no significant difference in revision rates between THA and HA (pooled OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.19; P = 0.874). But, fewer revisions (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.34; P = 0.000) were seen in patients treated with THA than osteosynthesis and also in those treated with HA than osteosynthesis (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20; P = 0.000). After excluding studies without showing normal cognition in inclusion criteria, pooled direct and indirect results also indicated no significant difference in mortality between THA, HA, and osteosynthesis. Similarly, there was no significant difference in revision rates between THA and HA, but HA and THA had significantly lower revision rates compared with osteosynthesis.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in overall mortality among osteosynthesis, HA, and THA. However, HA and THA had significantly lower revision rates compared with osteosynthesis. Results of the present study provide support for the use of hip arthroplasty to treat displaced fractures of the femoral neck.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Displaced femoral neck fractures Arthroplasty Osteosynthesis Elderly Open reduction internal fixation

Background

Approximately 250,000 proximal femoral fractures occur in the USA each year, and 90% of these fractures occur in patients older than 50 years of age [1, 2]. Fractures of the femoral neck can be categorized into either non-displaced or displaced fractures in order to facilitate appropriate management, particularly in the elderly [3, 4]. Displaced femoral neck fractures are defined as unstable fractures that can impair blood supply to the femoral head, resulting in avascular necrosis [5, 6]. These fractures are associated with substantial fracture-related mortality and morbidity [6, 7]. An additional contributor to femoral head osteonecrosis involves the quality of the reduction or fracture fixation [8].

Osteosynthesis refers to the percutaneous placement of several parallel cannulated lag screws, and in the younger patient, such internal fixation is the standard treatment for displaced fractures [8]. Hip arthroplasty, on the other hand, refers to replacement of all or part of the hip joint with a prosthetic implant [6, 9] and can be divided into either total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). THA involves replacement of both the femoral head and the acetabular articular surface, whereas in HA, only the femoral head is replaced with an artificial implant, while the patient’s own acetabulum is retained [5, 6, 9].

Although internal fixation is recommended for most non-displaced fractures of the femoral neck, the optimal treatment for displaced fractures of the femoral neck is still controversial [1012]. HA was once considered the procedure of choice for elderly patients with displaced (Garden stage III or IV) femoral neck fractures [13], but a Swedish study concluded that THA should be performed for displaced femoral neck fractures in older patients with normal mental function and high function [14], a conclusion that has been echoed in several more recent publications [15, 16]. Davison et al., on the other hand, recommended either reduction with internal fixation or cemented HA as alternative treatments for a displaced intracapsular fracture in a mobile and mentally competent patient under 80 years of age [10].

The literature also contains conflicting evidence regarding rates of mortality, major postoperative complications, and function in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated either by internal fixation or arthroplasty [17]. In fact, the choice of surgical treatment for a displaced intracapsular fracture of the proximal femur in the elderly remains as controversial now as it was over 50 years ago when it was designated as “the unsolved fracture” [10, 12, 18]. This meta-analysis was designed, therefore, to address this controversy by comparing outcomes after internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and THA, with particular reference to mortality and revision rates because until now, few studies have compared these three alternative treatments [10]. In addition, due to the limited number of studies with head-to-head comparison of HA and total hip replacement, a statistical analysis (comprised of both direct and indirect comparisons) was utilized to achieve this study’s objective.

Methods

Selection criteria

Only English language publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective comparative studies of patients with displaced femoral neck fractures were included. Patient subjects had to be elderly (60 years of age or older) and capable of walking independently (without relying on another person), with or without aids prior to the injury. In addition, only studies that involved one or more comparisons of at least two types of intervention: (1) osteosynthesis vs. THA, (2) osteosynthesis vs. HA, or (3) THA vs. HA were included in the analysis.

Retrospective studies, letters, comments, editorials, case reports, technical reports, and non-English publications were excluded. In addition, any retrospective comparative study or single-arm study was excluded. Any study design that contained no numerical information about the outcomes of interest was also excluded.

Search strategy

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines [19]. Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched until August 31, 2014. In addition, the reference lists of relevant studies were manually searched. Keywords used for the search included femoral neck, fracture, total hip replacement, internal fixation, open reduction internal fixation, ORIF, osteosynthesis, HA, and arthroplasty.

Study selection and data extraction

Studies were identified by two independent reviewers using the designated search strategy. Where there was uncertainty regarding eligibility, a third reviewer was consulted. Data extraction was also performed by two independent reviewers, and a third reviewer was consulted for any uncertainties. The following data were extracted from studies that met the inclusion criteria: the name of the first author; year of publication; study design; number of participants in each treatment group; demographic data of participants, such as age and gender; diagnostic criteria; treatment methods; and duration of follow-up.

Quality assessment

The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was utilized to assess the included studies [20]. The quality assessment was performed by the independent reviewers, and a third reviewer was consulted for any uncertainties.

Outcome measures

The primary endpoint in the meta-analysis was the overall mortality, and the secondary endpoint was the revision rate. Economic outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and functional outcomes were not assessed. However, additional analysis was performed on a subgroup of studies involving only elderly subjects with no significant or severe cognitive impairment. This approach was used to determine if any differences existed regarding mortality and revision rates within this subgroup, who underwent either HA, THA, or osteosynthesis.

Statistical analysis

The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for binary outcomes and then compared between two different interventions. A chi-square-based test of homogeneity was performed, and the inconsistency index (I 2) statistic was determined. When heterogeneity existed between studies (I 2 > 50%), a random-effects model was used. Otherwise, fixed-effects models were applied. Pooled summary statistics for ORs of the individual studies were reported. Sensitivity analysis was performed by using the leave-one-out cross-validation approach [21]. In addition, publication bias was not assessed in groups of fewer than five studies because more than ten studies are required to detect funnel plot asymmetry [22]. Direct pairwise meta-analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 2 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ). Adjusted indirect comparisons of pooled estimates using inverse variance weighting were then performed according to the methods of Bucher and colleagues using the indirect treatment comparison computer program, version 1.0 [23]. We calculated an indirect result between THA and HA groups.

Results

Literature search

After initially identifying 274 articles, 223 articles were excluded and 51 studies were assessed for eligibility. After full-text review, 17 additional articles were excluded, as shown in Fig. 1. The remaining 34 articles [10, 15, 2455] were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses.
Fig. 1

Flow chart for the study selection

Study characteristics

Twenty-six studies (reported in the 34 articles) were included in the systematic review. All studies compared arthroplasty with osteosynthesis (Table 1); five studies (encompassing references [15, 2429]) compared THA (n = 218) with osteosynthesis (n = 235), 14 studies (encompassing references [10, 3044]) compared HA (n = 1518) with osteosynthesis (n = 1178), and only seven studies (encompassing references [4555]) compared THA (n = 432) and HA (n = 462). Postoperative follow-up ranged from 14.5 months [26] to 17 years [15].
Table 1

A list of included studies and demography of the study subjects

First author

Normal cognition

Interventions

No. of patients

Age (years)

Male (%)

Duration of follow-up

Tools for functional measurement

Total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty

 Avery (2011) [45] and Baker (2006) [46]

Yes

Total hip arthroplasty

40

74

20

8.83 (7.2 to 10.3) years

Oxford Hip Score

Hemiarthroplasty

41

76

22

8.6 (7.2 to 10) years

 Cadossi (2013) [49]

Yes

Total hip arthroplasty

42

82

19

28.6 (22 to 52) months

Harris Hip Score

Hemiarthroplasty

41

84

32

30.1 (23 to 50) months

 Hedbeck (2011) [48] and Blomfeldt (2007) [47]

Yes

Total hip arthroplasty

60

81

22

4 years

Harris Hip Score

Hemiarthroplasty

60

81

10

 Keating (2006) [51] and Keating (2005) [50]

Yes

Total hip arthroplasty

69

75

25

2 years

Hip rating questionnaire

Hemiarthroplasty

69

75

22

 Macaulay (2008) [52]

Yes

Total hip arthroplasty

17

82

59

34 (29 to 42) months

Harris Hip Score

Hemiarthroplasty

23

77

39

 Ravikumar (2000) [53] and Skinner (1989) [54]

No

Total hip arthroplasty

89

81

10

13 years

Harris Hip Score

Hemiarthroplasty

91

82

 van den Bekerom (2010) [55]

Yes

Total hip arthroplasty

115

82

22

5 years

Harris Hip Score

Hemiarthroplasty

137

80

16

Total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

 Bachrach-Lindström (2000) [24]

No

Total hip arthroplasty

50

84

20

1 year

NA

Closed reduction and internal fixation

50

84

24

 Blomfeldt (2005a) [27], Tidermark (2003) [28], and Tidermark (2003) [29]

Yes

Total hip replacement

49

79

18

4 years

Charnley’s numerical classification

Closed reduction and internal fixation

53

81

21

 Chammout (2012) [15]

Yes

Total hip replacement

43

78

12

17 years

Harris Hip Score

Open reduction and internal fixation

57

79

28

 Jónsson (1996) [25]

NA

Total hip replacement

23

80a

22

2 years

Walking ability, pain or social function

Closed reduction and internal fixation

24

79a

25

 Söreide (1979) [26]

NA

Total hip replacement

53

78

13

14.5 (12–23) months

Stinchfield’s classification system

Reduction and internal fixation

51

78

26

14.7 (12–24) months

Hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

 Bjorgul (2006) [30]

NA

Hemiarthroplasty

455

82

20

6 years

NA

Internal fixation

228

82

31

 Blomfeldt (2005b) [31]

No

Hemiarthroplasty

30

84

7

2 years

Charnley’s numerical classification

Internal fixation

30

84

13

 Davison (2001) [10]

Yes

Thompson unipolar hemiarthroplasty

90

76a

21

5 years

Harris Hip Score

Monk bipolar hemiarthroplasty

97

75a

26

Reduction and internal fixation

93

73a

25

 El-Abed (2005) [32]

Yes

Hemiarthroplasty

62

74

35

3 (3 to 4.5) years

Matta Scoring System

Dynamic screw fixation

60

72

30

 Frihagen (2007) [41] and Støen (2014) [42]

No

Hemiarthroplasty

110

83

29

6 (5 to 7) years

Harris Hip Score

Internal fixation

112

83

22

 Hedbeck (2013) [33]

No

Hemiarthroplasty

29

85

17

2 years

Charnley’s numerical classification

Internal fixation

30

84

17

 Heetveld (2007) [34]

No

Hemiarthroplasty

109

83

17

2 years

Harris Hip Score

Internal fixation

115

77

34

 Parker (2002) [44] and Parker (2010) [43]

No

Hemiarthroplasty

229

82

20

11 years

Charnley’s numerical classification

Internal fixation

226

82

20

 Puolakka (2001) [35]

NA

Hemiarthroplasty

15

82

7

2 years

NA

Internal fixation

17

81

24

 Rödén (2003) [36]

Yes

Prosthesis

47

81

28

5 years

NA

Internal fixation

53

81

30

 Sikorski (1981) [37]

NA

Posterior Thompson

57

80

16

2 years

Pain and mobility

Anterior Thompson

57

9

Internal fixation

76

21

 

 van Dortmont (2000) [38]

No

Hemiarthroplasty

29

84

24

16.5 (0.167 to 69.5) months

NA

Internal fixation

31

84

3

 van Vugt (1993) [39]

Yes

Hemiarthroplasty

22

76

36

3 years

Sheperd’s pain and the hip mobility score

Osteosynthesis

21

75

48

 Waaler Bjornelv (2012) [40]

No

Hemiarthroplasty

80

82

29

2 years

Harris Hip Score

Internal fixation

86

22

NA not available

aData are shown as median numbers

As shown in Table 1, ages of participants were similar among studies and between groups of different interventions, and the majority of participants were female.

Primary outcome measure: overall mortality

Total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty

Direct pairwise comparison

All seven studies reported mortality [45, 48, 49, 5153, 55]. A random-effects model of analysis was used due to heterogeneity among the studies (Q = 14.044, P = 0.029; I 2 = 57.28%). Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality between THA and HA (pooled OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; P = 0.537) (Fig. 2a).
Fig. 2

Meta-analysis forest plot for odds ratio of mortality for a total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty, b total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis, and c hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

Indirect comparison

Results of the adjusted indirect comparison for mortality between THA and HA are shown in Fig. 2a (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.83; P = 0.918). The pooled results from direct and indirect results showed no significant difference in mortality between THA and HA (pooled OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.38; P = 0.556) (Fig. 2a). A random-effects model was used because of heterogeneity existed (Q = 14.074, P = 0.05; I 2 = 50.26%).

Total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

Of the five studies, four reported patient mortality [2427]. A fixed-effect model of analysis was used because no heterogeneity existed among the studies (Q = 0.333, P = 0.954; I 2 = 0%). The results indicated no significant difference in mortality between THA and osteosynthesis (pooled OR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.99; P = 0.553) (Fig. 2b).

Hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

Of the 14 studies, 12 studies reported mortality [10, 3032, 3439, 4144]. A random-effects model was used due to heterogeneity among the studies (Q = 34.206, P < 0.001; I 2 = 67.84%). There was no significant difference in mortality between HA and osteosynthesis (pooled OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.74; P = 0.304) (Fig. 2c).

Secondary outcome measure: revision rate

Total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty

Direct pairwise comparison

Of the seven studies evaluated, five reported revision rates [45, 48, 49, 53, 55]. A random-effects model of analysis was used to evaluate heterogeneity among the studies (Q = 11.128, P = 0.025; I 2 = 64.05%). The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in revision rates between THA and HA (pooled OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.21; P = 0.710) (Fig. 3a).
Fig. 3

Meta-analysis forest plot for odds ratio of revision for (a) total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty, (b) total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis, and (c) hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

Indirect comparison

Results of the adjusted indirect comparison of revision rates between THA and HA are shown in Fig. 3a (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.58; P = 0.271). The pool of the direct and indirect results showed no significant difference in revision rates between THA and HA (pooled OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.19; P = 0.874) (Fig. 3a). A random-effects model was used due to heterogeneity among the studies (Q = 17.141, P = 0.004; I 2 = 70.83%).

Total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

Of the five studies, four reported revision rates [15, 2527]. A fixed-effect model of analysis was used due to homogeneity among the studies (Q = 4.396, P = 0.222; I 2 = 31.76%). The pooled results showed fewer (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; P = 0.000) revisions in patients treated by THA than by osteosynthesis (Fig. 3b).

Hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

Of the 14 studies, 11 studies reported revision rates [10, 3036, 38, 4144]. A random-effects model was used, due to heterogeneity among the studies (Q = 23.06, P = 0.011; I 2 = 56.63%). The pooled results showed fewer (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20; P = 0.000) revisions for HA compared with osteosynthesis (Fig. 3c). That is to say, patients who underwent osteosynthesis were approximately eight times more likely to need a second operation.

Sensitivity analyses and publication bias

The sensitivity tests showed no obvious influence of any individual study on the pooled estimates (Table 2). In addition, it was not possible to assess publication bias for mortality and revision rates due to the small number of studies used in the meta-analysis.
Table 2

Sensitivity analyses: a leave-one-out cross-validation approach

Study name

Odds ratio

Lower limit

Upper limit

Z value

P value

Mortality

 (A) Total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty

  Avery (2011) [45]

0.98

0.65

1.49

− 0.08

0.938

  Cadossi (2013) [49]

0.95

0.61

1.46

− 0.25

0.805

  Hedbeck (2011) [48]

0.83

0.52

1.33

− 0.79

0.432

  Keating (2006) [51]

0.91

0.58

1.43

− 0.40

0.693

  Macaulay (2008) [52]

0.90

0.58

1.41

− 0.45

0.655

  Ravikumar (2000) [53]

0.91

0.57

1.45

− 0.39

0.694

  van den Bekerom (2010) [55]

0.76

0.55

1.06

− 1.62

0.106

 (B) Total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

  Bachrach-Lindstrom (2000) [24]

1.13

0.60

2.11

0.39

0.700

  Blomfeldt (2005) [27]

1.29

0.67

2.48

0.78

0.437

  Jónsson (1996) [25]

1.14

0.66

1.98

0.47

0.641

  Söreide (1979) [26]

1.15

0.62

2.16

0.45

0.655

 (C) Hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

  Bjorgul (2006) [30]

1.25

0.82

1.90

1.02

0.310

  Blomfeldt (2005) [31]

1.21

0.83

1.78

0.98

0.325

  Davison (2001) [10]

1.17

0.80

1.71

0.82

0.415

  El-Abed (2005) [32]

1.15

0.79

1.67

0.71

0.479

  Frihagen (2007) [41] and Støen (2014) [42]

1.23

0.82

1.85

1.00

0.315

  Heetveld (2007) [34]

1.00

0.82

1.21

0.00

0.999

  Parker (2002, 2010) [43, 44]

1.23

0.81

1.88

0.98

0.329

  Puolakka (2001) [35]

1.22

0.84

1.78

1.03

0.301

  Rödén (2003) [36]

1.28

0.87

1.87

1.26

0.208

  Sikorski (1981) [37]

1.27

0.85

1.88

1.17

0.241

  van Dortmont (2000) [38]

1.28

0.88

1.86

1.31

0.189

  van Vugt (1993) [39]

1.21

0.83

1.77

0.98

0.326

Revision rates

 (A) Total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty

  Avery (2011) [45]

1.12

0.29

4.26

0.16

0.871

  Cadossi (2013) [49]

0.63

0.20

2.00

− 0.78

0.433

  Hedbeck (2011) [48]

0.69

0.20

2.38

− 0.58

0.560

  Ravikumar (2000) [53]

1.29

0.38

4.39

0.41

0.684

  van den Bekerom (2010) [55]

1.11

0.26

4.68

0.14

0.888

 (B) Total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

  Blomfeldt (2005) [27]

0.25

0.12

0.50

− 3.88

< 0.001

  Chammout (2012) [15]

0.12

0.05

0.31

− 4.45

< 0.001

  Jónsson (1996) [25]

0.20

0.10

0.38

− 4.81

< 0.001

  Söreide (1979) [26]

0.17

0.08

0.34

− 4.88

< 0.001

 (C) Hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis

  Bjorgul (2006) [30]

0.13

0.08

0.23

− 7.45

< 0.001

  Blomfeldt (2005) [31]

0.11

0.07

0.18

− 8.49

< 0.001

  Davison (2001) [10]

0.12

0.07

0.22

− 7.33

< 0.001

  El-Abed (2005) [32]

0.10

0.07

0.13

− 14.80

< 0.001

  Frihagen (2007) [41] and Støen (2014) [42]

0.12

0.07

0.20

− 7.48

< 0.001

  Hedbeck (2013) [33]

0.12

0.07

0.20

− 8.02

< 0.001

  Heetveld (2007) [34]

0.13

0.08

0.22

− 7.88

< 0.001

  Parker (2002, 2010) [43, 44]

0.13

0.07

0.22

− 7.14

< 0.001

  Puolakka (2001) [35]

0.12

0.07

0.21

− 8.11

< 0.001

  Rödén (2003) [36]

0.12

0.07

0.21

− 7.47

< 0.001

  van Dortmont (2000) [38]

0.12

0.07

0.20

− 8.11

< 0.001

Outcome measures involving a subgroup of patients with normal cognition

After excluding studies without showing normal cognition in inclusion criteria, six studies were included in the meta-analysis for the odds ratio of mortality rate for THA vs. HA. A random-effects model was used due to large heterogeneity among studies (Q = 13.008, P = 0.023; I 2 = 61.56%). The pooled odds ratio was 0.87 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.56; P = 0.648; Fig. 4a), suggesting that there was no significant difference in the odds ratio of mortality between patients treated with THA and HA. For the comparison between HA and osteosynthesis, four studies designed for patients with normal cognition were analyzed. A fixed-effects model was used since there was no evidence of heterogeneity among the four studies (Q = 4.895, P = 0.180; I 2 = 38.71%; Fig. 4b). No significant difference in the odds ratio of mortality was found between patients treated with HA and osteosynthesis (OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; P = 0.267).
Fig. 4

Meta-analysis forest plot of odds ratio of mortality for a total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty and b hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis in the subgroup of patients with no significant cognitive impairment

Four studies of patients with normal cognition were included to examine the odds ratio of revision rate for THA vs. HA. A random-effects model was used (Q = 7.8665, P = 0.049; I 2 = 61.86%). There was no difference in the odds ratio of revision between the THA and HA groups (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 9.11; P = 0.761; Fig. 5a). To compare differences in revision rate between THA and osteosynthesis groups, two studies of patients with normal cognition were included with large heterogeneity (Q = 3.815, P = 0.051; I 2 = 73.79%). Patients treated with THA had significantly lower revision rates than did those with osteosynthesis (OR = 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.70; P = 0.017; Fig. 5b). For the comparison between HA and osteosynthesis, three studies designed for patients with normal cognition were analyzed. A random-effects model was used due to large heterogeneity among studies (Q = 10.571, P = 0.005; I 2 = 81.08%). The pooled results showed that patients treated with HA had lower revision rates than those treated with osteosynthesis (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62; P = 0.006; Fig. 5c).
Fig. 5

Meta-analysis forest plot of odds ratio of revision for a total hip arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty, b total hip arthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis, and c hemiarthroplasty vs. osteosynthesis, in the subgroup of patients with no significant cognitive impairment

Quality assessment

The results of quality assessment are shown in Fig. 6. In this figure, Fig. 6a shows the potential risk of bias in an individual study, and Fig. 6b shows the summary of bias for included studies. The most potential risk of bias came from performance bias and detection bias because of inadequate blinding of participants and outcome assessors.
Fig. 6

The results of quality assessment for a individual studies. b The summary of bias for all included studies

Discussion

This meta-analysis compared the overall mortality and revision rates between arthroplasty (HA and THA) vs. osteosynthesis for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. Advanced statistical analysis (indirect comparison) was used simultaneously to compare THA and HA in order to resolve the lack of studies with head-to-head comparison between THA and HA. We also compared clinical outcomes of arthroplasty (THA and HA) vs. osteosynthesis (internal fixation) for displaced femoral neck fractures.

This meta-analysis found no significant difference in mortality rates between THA, HA, and OS. In addition, no significant difference in revision rates was found between THA and HA, but osteosynthesis had higher revision rates than either THA or HA. The additional subgroup analysis, using only studies involving elderly subjects without significant cognitive impairment, provided similar results for mortality (i.e., no difference between HA and osteosynthesis) and revision rates (no difference between THA and HA), but OS had higher revision rates than either THA or HA.

One study (two articles) showed the mean survival time of persons who died for both THA (5.3 years, range 1.3 to 9.1 years) and HA (3.8 years, range 0.003 to 7.5 years) [45, 46]. Two studies (three articles) assessed the mean survival time after intervention. Davison et al. [10] found that patients who received Thompson unipolar HA, Monk (hard-top) bipolar HA, and reduction/internal fixation had mean survival times of 61, 68, and 79 months, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean survival time between groups (P = 0.008). Parker et al. [43, 44] found that the patients who received HA and internal fixation had mean survival times of 2.7 years (95% CI 2.2–3.1) and 3.2 years (95% CI 2.5–3.9), respectively. No significant difference was found between groups. Due to the limitation in the number of available studies, the survival time after interventions (osteosynthesis, HA, and THA) was not included in the meta-analysis.

No meta-analysis was conducted for the functional outcome after interventions since the methods or scales for evaluating hip function were heterogeneous among the included articles (Table 1), including the Oxford Hip Score [45, 46], Harris Hip Score [10, 15, 34, 4042, 4749, 5255], hip rating questionnaire [50, 51], Charnley’s numerical classification [2729, 31, 33, 43, 44], Matta Scoring System [32], Stinchfield’s classification system [26], and Sheperd’s pain and hip mobility score [39]. In addition, no data for baseline measurement were shown in most of the studies. Therefore, it was impossible to estimate the difference in mean change before and after the intervention between the two groups.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to compare three types of interventions for displaced femoral neck fractures in one meta-analysis. Although a meta-analysis comparing THA, HA, and osteosynthesis was reported in 2012 by Gao et al. [17], the need to revisit this issue (by conducting another meta-analysis) remained because the meta-analysis by Gao et al. compared the outcomes between arthroplasty and internal fixation and thus pooled together the outcomes of HA and total hip replacement [17]. Fisher et al. [56], in their review of 3423 cases of ORIF, THA, and HA, found no differences in the 30-day mortality rates among the ORIF, HA, and THA groups, similar to our findings. ORIF and HA also resulted in a lower likelihood of developing respiratory complications than did THA [56]. A meta-analysis comparing THA and HA was reported by Burgers et al. [57]. Given the heterogeneity in surgical technique and experience over time, we felt an update of the evidence was necessary. We have updated the search, but our results were consistent with this meta-analysis that no significant difference was found in mortality and revision rates between THA and HA, but they demonstrated that THA may lead to higher dislocation rates compared with HA [57]. Therefore, it was felt that the optimal choice of arthroplasty (THA or HA) for treating femoral neck fractures had not yet been established.

It appears that the choice between arthroplasty and internal fixation in some studies was based primarily on the survival time of the implant. For example, in Davison et al. [10], HA was not recommended due to the shorter mean survival time of the implant compared with internal fixation despite the fact that internal fixation was associated with a 30% risk of failure [10]. They reported a mean patient survival which was significantly higher in the group undergoing reduction and internal fixation (79 months) compared with that with a cemented Thompson HA or a cemented Monk bipolar HA (61 and 68 months, respectively). We also found that the revision rates were lower in arthroplasty compared with internal fixation, but survival was the same among all three types of intervention (HA, THA, and osteosynthesis). These differences are likely related to the type of arthroplasty used. As in our evaluation, there was significant heterogeneity both in the implant used and the technique applied (for example, cementless HA [31, 32] vs. cemented HA [10, 30], articulation of metal on ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene in THR vs. metal on articular cartilage following HA [45]).

Nikitovic [6], on the basis of two systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of THA in comparison with HA for treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, found a significant reduction in revision rates among patients receiving THA in comparison with HA. In addition, his recent study showed a significant improvement in functional outcome among patients receiving THA in comparison with HA, using the Harris Hip Score for the assessment. THA was favored over HA based on improvements in QoL using mobility and pain measures [6].

No meta-analysis was conducted for the QoL after interventions since the methods or scales for evaluating QoL were heterogeneous among the included articles. SF-36 was used in three studies (four articles), including three articles for THA vs. HA [45, 46, 52] and one article for HA vs. osteosynthesis [32]. EQ-5D was used in six studies (ten articles), including four articles for THA vs. HA [47, 48, 50, 51], three articles for THA vs. osteosynthesis [2729], and three articles for HA vs. osteosynthesis [31, 33, 40]. Although we did not evaluate QoL, some studies have placed emphasis on social functioning after intervention. Jónsson et al. evaluated 50 patients with Garden stage 3 and 4 femoral neck fractures randomized for treatment using either osteosynthesis with the Hansson hook pins or THA with the Charnley prosthesis [25]. The patients were followed for up to 2 years, and their social function was evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. The authors concluded that a patient over 70 years of age who was relatively healthy, mobile, and socially independent should be considered for a primary hip prosthesis even if late complications, such as mechanical loosening, were taken into account. This conclusion was based on the fact that the majority of patients over 70 years of age are less likely to live long enough to develop implant loosening. For very old, frail, or immobile patients, however, osteosynthesis was the preferred treatment [25]. And, these findings were echoed in a more recent study from Sweden [24]. Bachrach-Lindström et al. found that a primary THA group performed better than an osteosynthesis group in weight change over time, locomotion, and pain. They also showed that primary THA could be performed safely in the elderly without increasing postoperative mortality [24].

As part of our study, we performed a sensitivity analysis and tested for homogeneity and quality. Since our analysis showed heterogeneity among the majority of studies, a random-effects model was primarily applied. We also tested for reliability based on sensitivity analysis. The direction and magnitude of the combined estimates did not change markedly with the exclusion of individual studies, indicating that our meta-analysis had good reliability. The results of quality assessment showed that the most potential risk of bias came from performance bias and detection bias because of inadequate blinding of participants and outcome assessors.

We also tested for publication bias. Although significant evidence of publication bias was found regarding differences in survival between THA and HA, we adjusted the effect of publication bias, and the adjusted point estimates of OR on mortality increased to 1.13 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.67, Fig. 2c).

In the 26 studies evaluated as part of our meta-analysis, almost all subjects had freedom of mobility or were capable of independent walking before their injury, and there was a female predominance. This is not surprising, as the incidence of proximal femoral fractures among females is two to three times greater than the incidence of such fractures in males [1]. Other risk factors for proximal femoral fractures include osteoporosis [1], a maternal history of hip fractures [58], excessive alcohol consumption and high caffeine intake [59], and physical inactivity [60], to name a few. Owing to our aging population, the risk of sustaining a proximal femoral fracture doubles every 10 years after the age of 50 [1]. Therefore, this study has clinical relevance in that it is an attempt to identify the best treatment option for these elderly patients.

Our study had several limitations. Potential performance and detection biases might exist in most of the included studies. We also did not assess functional status of the patients after the reconstructive procedures, and this was an inevitable shortcoming of this study. Notably for a patient with severe cognitive dysfunction, the lack of a surgical revision might correlate with a limited capacity for independent ambulation and with an inability to verbally express the features of a potentially symptomatic hip. We did perform an analysis on a subgroup of elderly patients without severe cognitive impairment and found no significant difference in the results regarding mortality and revision rates. But, the ways in which cognitive impairment was defined as significant or severe differed among studies. In addition, several studies only included patients with acute displaced femoral neck fractures with different time periods between fracture occurrence and admission; this ranged from 12 to 96 h. In addition, the studies included different types of femoral neck fractures, and not all studies specified the Garden stages of fractures. For all these reasons, more future studies comparing these three types of interventions are still needed to confirm our findings. Furthermore, there was significant heterogeneity among studies, especially with respect to the types of implants used for HA and THA and the types of screws used for osteosynthesis. The optimal choice of screw or reduction method (open or closed) for osteosynthesis remains unclear. Among included studies, only a few [15, 25, 4548] chose independent living as a selection criterion, and it is arguable whether living independently or in a nursing home could have an impact on the results. Furthermore, the surgeons’ experiences and the different numbers and types of procedures performed at the various medical centers were possible confounding factors that may have affected the results and influenced the heterogeneity among studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, HA and THA provided similar overall mortality and revision rates, but both HA and THA had significantly lower revision rates compared with osteosynthesis. The results were not affected by excluding studies without showing normal cognition in inclusion criteria. Results of the present study provide evidence to support using hip arthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck displaced fractures. To compare the clinical outcomes, functional outcomes, and health-related QoL between hip arthroplasty and osteosynthesis, a well-designed randomized control trial is warranted.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

HA: 

Hemiarthroplasty

I 2

Inconsistency index

OR: 

Odds ratio

QoL: 

Quality of life

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

THA: 

Total hip arthroplasty

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Authors’ contributions

F-JT: guarantor of integrity of the entire study, study concepts, study design, definition of intellectual content, literature research, data acquisition, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation; W-TC: study concepts, definition of intellectual content, literature research, data acquisition, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation; R-YP: study concepts, study design, definition of intellectual content, literature research, data acquisition, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, manuscript review; L-CL: study concepts, manuscript editing; H-CS: study concepts, manuscript editing; C-HW: manuscript editing; J-FS: manuscript review; C-FW: guarantor of integrity of the entire study, study design, manuscript editing, manuscript review. All authors read and approved the study.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Life Science and the Institute of Biotechnology, National Dong Hwa University
(2)
Department of Orthopedics, Hualien Armed Force General Hospital
(3)
Department of Health, Hsin Chu General Hospital
(4)
Department of Orthopaedics, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center
(5)
Graduate Institute of Medical Science, National Defense Medical Center
(6)
Department of Biology and Anatomy, National Defense Medical Center

References

  1. Zuckerman JD. Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1519–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fox KM, Magaziner J, Hebel JR, Kenzora JE, Kashner TM. Intertrochanteric versus femoral neck fractures: differential characteristics, treatment, and sequelae. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999;54:M635–M40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Garden RS. Low-angle fixation in fractures of the femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1961;43:647–63.Google Scholar
  4. Pauyo T, Drager J, Albers A, Harvey EJ. Management of femoral neck fractures in the young patient: a critical analysis review. World J Orthop. 2014;5:204–17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler M, Forte M, Kane RL, Joglekar S, Duval SJ, Swiontkowski M, et al. Treatment of common hip fractures. Evid Rep Tech Assess. 2009;184:1–85.Google Scholar
  6. Nikitovic M. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a rapid review. 2013. 22p. Available from: http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/Documents/evidence/rapid-reviews/hip-anthroplasty-130423-en.pdf.
  7. Parker MJ. The management of intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;82:937–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Upadhyay A, Jain P, Mishra P, Maini L, Gautum VK, Dhaon BK. Delayed internal fixation of fractures of the neck of the femur in young adults. A prospective, randomised study comparing closed and open reduction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:1035–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS, Azegami S. Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;6:CD001706.Google Scholar
  10. Davison JN, Calder SJ, Anderson GH, Ward G, Jagger C, Harper WM, et al. Treatment for displaced intracapsular fracture of the proximal femur. A prospective, randomised trial in patients aged 65 to 79 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:206–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Healy WL, Iorio R. Total hip arthroplasty: optimal treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:43–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Tornetta P 3rd, Swiontkowski MF, Berry DJ, Haidukewych G, et al. Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. An international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2122–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Guyton JL. Fractures of hip, acetabulum, and pelvis. In: Canale ST, editor. Campbell’s operative orthopedics. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1998. p. 2181–276.Google Scholar
  14. Johansson T, Jacobsson SA, Ivarsson I, Knutsson A, Wahlström O. Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:597–602.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chammout GK, Mukka SS, Carlsson T, Neander GF, Stark AW, Skoldenberg OG. Total hip replacement versus open reduction and internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:1921–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogmark C, Johnell O. Primary arthroplasty is better than internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized studies with 2,289 patients. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:359–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gao H, Liu Z, Xing D, Gong M. Which is the best alternative for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly?: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1782–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Speed K. Fractures; a fifty year review of teaching and treatment. Illinois Med J. 1952;102:114–7.Google Scholar
  19. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W65–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic. Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. (updated March, 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (Accessed date: 1 Dec 2014).
  21. Sutton AJ, Song F, Gilbody SM, Abrams KR. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2000;9:421–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;d4002:343.Google Scholar
  23. Wells GA, Sultran SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect treatment comparison [computer program]. Version 1.0. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Ottawa; 2009.Google Scholar
  24. Bachrach-Lindström M, Johansson T, Unosson M, Ek AC, Wahlström O. Nutritional status and functional capacity after femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized one-year follow-up study. Aging (Milano). 2000;12:366–74.Google Scholar
  25. Jónsson B, Sernbo I, Carlsson A, Fredin H, Johnell O. Social function after cervical hip fracture. A comparison of hook-pins and total hip replacement in 47 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:431–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Söreide O, Molster A, Raugstad TS. Internal fixation versus primary prosthetic replacement in acute femoral neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Br J Surg. 1979;66:56–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Söderqvist A, Tidermark J. Comparison of internal fixation with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures. Randomized, controlled trial performed at four years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1680–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tidermark J, Bergström G, Svensson O, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S. Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1069–79.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tidermark J, Ponzer S, Svensson O, Söderqvist A, Törnkvist H. Internal fixation compared with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. A randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:380–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Bjorgul K, Reikeras O. Hemiarthroplasty in worst cases is better than internal fixation in best cases of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective study of 683 patients treated with hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:368–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Söderqvist A, Tidermark J. Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients with severe cognitive impairment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:523–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. El-Abed K, McGuinness A, Brunner J, Dallovedova P, O’Connor P, Kennedy JG. Comparison of outcomes following uncemented hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of displaced subcapital hip fractures in patients aged greater than 70 years. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005;71:48–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedbeck CJ, Inngul C, Blomfeldt R, Ponzer S, Törnkvist H, Enocson A. Internal fixation versus cemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in patients with severe cognitive dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27:690–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Heetveld MJ, Raaymakers EL, Luitse JS, Nijhof M, Gouma DJ. Femoral neck fractures: can physiologic status determine treatment choice? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:203–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Puolakka TJ, Laine HJ, Tarvainen T, Aho H. Thompson hemiarthroplasty is superior to Ullevaal screws in treating displaced femoral neck fractures in patients over 75 years. A prospective randomized study with two-year follow-up. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 2001;90:225–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rödén M, Schön M, Fredin H. Treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized minimum 5-year follow-up study of screws and bipolar hemiprostheses in 100 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:42–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sikorski JM, Barrington R. Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for the displaced subcapital fracture of the femur. A prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981;63-B:357–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. van Dortmont LM, Douw CM, van Breukelen AM, Laurens DR, Mulder PG, Wereldsma JC, van Vugt AB. Cannulated screws versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in demented patients. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 2000;89:132–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. van Vugt AB, Oosterwijk WM, Goris RJ. Osteosynthesis versus endoprosthesis in the treatment of unstable intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. A randomized clinical trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1993;113:39–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Waaler Bjørnelv GM, Frihagen F, Madsen JE, Nordsletten L, Aas E. Hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation with percutaneous cannulated screws as treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: cost-utility analysis performed alongside a randomized, controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:1711–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Frihagen F, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE. Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335:1251–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Støen RØ, Lofthus CM, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE, Frihagen F. Randomized trial of hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: no differences at 6 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:360–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker MJ, Pryor G, Gurusamy K. Hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Injury. 2010;41:370–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker MJ, Khan RJ, Crawford J, Pryor GA. Hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. A randomised trial of 455 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:1150–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Avery PP, Baker RP, Walton MJ, Rooker JC, Squires B, Gargan MF, et al. Total hip replacement and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck: a seven- to ten-year follow-up report of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1045–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Baker RP, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2583–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Eriksson K, Söderqvist A, Ponzer S, Tidermark J. A randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:160–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Hedbeck CJ, Enocson A, Lapidus G, Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, et al. Comparison of bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a concise four-year follow-up of a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:445–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Cadossi M, Chiarello E, Savarino L, Tedesco G, Baldini N, Faldini C, et al. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty with a novel polycarbonate-urethane acetabular component for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck: a randomised controlled trial in elderly patients. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:609–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF. Displaced intracapsular hip fractures in fit, older people: a randomised comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(41):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF. Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:249–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Macaulay W, Nellans KW, Garvin KL, Iorio R, Healy WL, Rosenwasser MP, other members of the DFACTO Consortium. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: winner of the Dorr Award. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:2–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ravikumar KJ, Marsh G. Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty for displaced subcapital fractures of femur—13 year results of a prospective randomised study. Injury. 2000;31:793–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Skinner P, Riley D, Ellery J, Beaumont A, Coumine R, Shafighian B. Displaced subcapital fractures of the femur: a prospective randomized comparison of internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement. Injury. 1989;20:291–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. van den Bekerom MP, Hilverdink EF, Sierevelt IN, Reuling EM, Schnater JM, Bonke H, et al. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck: a randomised controlled multicentre trial in patients aged 70 years and over. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1422–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Fisher MA, Matthei JD, Obirieze A, Ortega G, Tran DD, Carnegie DA, et al. Open reduction internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty in the elderly: a review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Surg Res. 2013;181:193–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Burgers PT, Van Geene AR, Van den Bekerom MP, Van Lieshout EM, Blom B, Aleem IS, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized trials. Int Orthop. 2012;36:1549–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Stone K, Fox KM, Ensrud KE, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:767–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Hernandez-Avila M, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Willett WC. Caffeine, moderate alcohol intake, and risk of fractures of the hip and forearm in middle-aged women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;54:157–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Paganini-Hill A, Chao A, Ross RK, Henderson BE. Exercise and other factors in the prevention of hip fracture: the Leisure World study. Epidemiology. 1991;2:16–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement