Skip to main content

The comparison between total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on 25 randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background

We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis which enrolled 25 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes between total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) in patients with femoral neck fractures (FNFs).

Methods

We searched English databases which included PubMed, Embase (vis OvidSP), The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, and Chinese databases Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wang Fang, and China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM) in July 2020. The quality of each study was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias. Risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled with random-effects models. Data regarding baseline characteristics, hospital and surgery outcomes, clinical outcomes, patients’ quality of life, common complications, prothesis-related complications, mortality, and costs were reported.

Results

A total of 25 RCTs involving 3223 patients (1568 THA and 1655 HA) were included. THA had longer hospital length (WMD = 0.721, P < 0.0001) and surgery time (WMD = 20.044, P < 0.0001), and more blood loss compared with HA (WMD = 69.109, P < 0.0001). THA showed better ratings in the Harris Hip Score during follow-up periods between 1 and 5 years while no differences within 6 months and after 9 years. THA was associated with higher quality-of-life EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores after 2 years of surgery but no difference within 1 year. There was no difference in common complications. THA had significant higher rate of dislocation (WMD = 1.897, P = 0.002) and lower acetabular erosion (WMD = 0.030, P = 0.001). For mortality, there was no difference during all the follow-up periods except for slightly higher 2-year mortality after surgery.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrates that THA has better medium-term functional results and quality of life and lower acetabular erosion rate, while HA shows better in reducing hospital stay, surgery time, and blood loss and also has lower dislocation rate.

Background

Femoral neck fractures (FNFs) will bring baneful influences to patients due to its high morbidity, disability rate, economic burden, and mortality, and the rate is rapidly growing because of the increasing number of the elderly [23]. Arthroplasty is commonly recommended for displaced femoral neck fractures (67% of all types FNFs) in the elderly (age > 65 years) and can be categorized as total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) [34]. Whether THA or HA is more applicable in FNF remains controversial [21]. Both pros and cons of the treatments were widely reported in previous studies and synthesized reviews but did not reach a common conclusion [6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 26, 33, 49,50,51,52]. The ongoing discussion requires highly reliable answers. However, previous meta-analysis and reviews have several limitations. First, they did not fully mention the details of surgical approach, prosthetic choice, surgeon experience, and the type of both femoral and acetabular fixation, all of which we consider may cause chaos in conclusion. Second, serious inclusion criteria in some studies may lead to limited data to analyze. Third, subgroup analysis was limited, and long-term results were not considered. The latest meta-analysis included trials reported between 2006 and 2017 and may be outdated [33]. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with high quality have been published recently and not been included, and we carefully selected Chinese articles reported with enough follow-up duration and reported outcomes in our analysis [3, 8, 18, 25, 27, 31, 38, 44].

We conducted an updated meta-analysis only including RCTs to provide the most reliable evidence.

Methods

The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (www.prisma-statement.org).

Searches and selection criteria

We searched English databases which included PubMed, Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science and Chinese databases CNKI, VIP, WAN FANG, and CBM (all inception to July 2020) without language or date restriction as well as retrieving articles identified in other reviews by manual search. And the search strategy is provided in Supplementary files. Inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing THA with HA for FNFs and at least reporting one of the predetermined outcomes. To make our conclusion generalizable, we set no restrictions for follow-up time, patients’ age, study size, or pre-surgery status.

Outcome measures

We included the following outcomes:

  1. a)

    Hospital and surgery outcomes: hospital stays, surgery duration, blood loss;

  2. b)

    Clinical outcomes: Harris Hip Scores (HHS) within 6 months and up to 13 years;

  3. c)

    Patients’ quality of life: EQ-5D scores within 6 months and at 1 to 2 years;

  4. d)

    Common complications: pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, pressure ulcer, wound disease, surgical-site infection, and cardiovascular disease.

  5. e)

    Prothesis-related complications: revision, fracture, dislocation, loosening or subsidence, heterotopic ossification, and acetabular erosion;

  6. f)

    Mortality: mortality in hospital, within 6 months, at 1 to 2 years and up to 13 years;

  7. g)

    Cost;

Data extraction and study quality assessment

Two reviewers (T-XM, WD) independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. We develop a data extraction form and collected data from including articles after full-text reading and cross-checking procedures. Any discrepancies were evaluated by a third reviewer(C-JL). For study quality assessment, the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias was used. For missing data like standard deviation, we calculated them with formulas according to the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions or articles’ figure data.

Statistical methods

For statistical analysis, the review used forest plots to present the synthesized results. For continuous and binary variables, the weighted mean differences (WMD) and risk ratios (RR) were reported respectively with 95% confident interval (CI). Survivorship was analyzed through the Kaplan–Meier survivor curve. Heterogeneity was assessed by both Q2 and I2 tests, and P value < 0.1 or I2 > 50% indicates statistical heterogeneity. Galbraith tests and sensitivity analysis were used to identify the possible heterogeneity origins. If necessary, subgroups will be used to dismiss heterogeneity. The random effects model was conducted in any condition. We used sensitivity analysis by sequential omission of individual studies to validate the credibility of pooled data. For publication bias, the symmetry of funnel plots was visually evaluated, and Egger’s tests were also applied. For statistical analyses, the Review Manager (Version 5.0.2) and STATA (Version 13.0) software programs. All P values were two-sided.

Results

Search results

Our review yielded 2325 reports and excluded 1356 after duplicates. Of these literatures, 48 were included after selecting the title and abstracts. After full text screening, 23 were excluded, and the details were described in the flow chart (Fig. 1). For clinical outcomes, we included 25 reports based on 19 trials and extracted non-repeating data at different follow-up stages ([1,2,3,4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22, 25]; H. H [27].; W [29].; William [30, 31, 36,37,38, 40, 42,43,44, 46, 47]).

Fig. 1
figure1

PRISMA flowchart of the selection process

Methodological quality assessment

In this study, selection, attrition, and reporting bias can be considered low risk. Detection bias was moderate risk as well as performance bias. Therefore, the methodological assessment of this work can be judged as very good quality. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias, and the results are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure2

Risk of bias of included studies according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias

Risk of publication bias

Funnel plots of the outcome enrolled the most studies (dislocation) to detect publication bias. The symmetrical distribution and Egger’s test (P = 0.708) show low publication bias (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure3

Funnel plot based on dislocation rate

Study characteristics

We finally included 25 RCTs involving 3223 patients (THA 1568, HA 1655). Five of them ([1, 16]; W [29, 40].) were follow-up reports of previous trials. Table 1 summarizes the trials’ details.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Outcome of interests

The overall results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 The results of meta-analysis

Hospital and surgery outcomes

Compared to HA, THA has longer surgery time (WMD = 20.044, P < 0.0001), more blood loss (WMD = 69.106, P < 0.0001), and longer hospital length (WMD = 2.360, P = 0.031). Fifteen studies reported surgery time (THA 1292, HA 1341) while nine studies reported hospital length (THA 418, HA 443) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 96%). We further did the Galbraith test and found the main source of the heterogeneity ([25]; H. H [27].). We excluded them, and the results are stable with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). For blood loss, nine studies were included (THA 1063, HA 1038), and the results are stable after removing developing countries’ studies (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure4

Forest plot of meta-analysis: Hospital and surgery outcomes

Clinical outcomes

The results evidenced THA has similar HHS score with HA within 6 months (WMD = 1.641, P = 0.124) or after 9 years (WMD = 5.848, P = 0.273) but higher scores at 1 year (WMD = 3.593, P = 0.002), 2 years (WMD = 3.691, P = 0.020), and 3 to 5 years (WMD = 6.027, P = 0.035) (Fig. 5). Three studies reported pain score based on HHS subscore, and other three studies reported pain as binary variables; the results of both show no difference between groups at any follow-up points. For patients’ quality of life, pooled data revealed no significant difference of EQ-5D scores up to 1 year after surgery. But the results favor THA 2 years later (WMD = 0.107, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5
figure5

Forest plot of meta-analysis: Harris Hip Score

Fig. 6
figure6

Forest plot of meta-analysis: EQ–5D

Patients’ quality of life

The results showed that EQ-5D scores within 6 months (WMD = 0.031, P = 0.324) and at the first year after surgery (WMD = 0.033, P = 0.351) are similar between groups while favor THA 2 years later (WMD = 0.107, < 0.0001).

Common complications

The pooling data elicited no statistical difference across groups in terms of the events of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, pneumonia, pressure injury, wound disease, surgical-site infection, and cardiovascular disease.

Prothesis-related complications

A total of 13 studies suggested that revision rate is similar in both groups with a moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 47.2%), the Galbraith test detected the main source, and the results are stable after deleting the study [40] (I2 = 30.3%). The study reported a result of 13 years follow-up thus generate the heterogeneity. Sixteen studies evidenced that THA has higher dislocations rate than HA with significant difference (WMD = 1.897, P = 0.002). Compared with THA, HA has a higher rate of acetabular erosion (WMD = 0.030, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.219, P = 0.001) (Fig. 7). As for fracture, loosening or subsidence, and heterotopic ossification, the results detected no statistical difference between groups.

Fig. 7
figure7

Forest plot of meta-analysis: Prosthesis-related complications

Mortality

The Kaplan–Meier curve was applied, and we detected the similarity of survivorship (HR 1.029; 95% CI 0.905 to 1.169; P = 0.665; Fig. 8). Subgroup analysis of 2 years follow-up revealed reduced mortality in HA group (WMD = 1.224, P = 0.008)

Fig. 8
figure8

Survival curve

Discussion

Hospital and surgery outcomes

For surgery time, almost all previous synthesized outcomes are in consistence with our results [24, 28, 33, 48, 49]. And we consider the main reasons are that HA requires less operative installation steps including cup preparation and implantation. For hospital length, we found that THA has longer in-hospital duration in our study. The common reasons for delayed discharges are usually post-surgery complications, since we did not find out the difference in common complications, and we consider that the early ambulation ability for patients who undergone HA may cause the difference. We also found reduced blood loss in HA group and less surgical procedures; tissue damage may clarify the results.

All three indicators are in favor of HA group, and the results are hardly to change even with more evidence. However, the results may lack clinical values when it comes to decision-making.

Clinical outcomes

Many studies have proved better outcomes in THA group in terms of HHS but did not provide long-term results or subgroup analysis due to limited trials ([24]; Y [28, 33, 49].). We made subgroups based on follow-up periods and initially found that THA group has higher total HHS in medium term (1–5 years) but no difference in short (< 6 months) or long terms (> 9 years).

For pain scores, we detect no difference between two groups, and the PCU-THA used in one trial is the main source of heterogeneity [6]. Liu (Y [28].) and Wang [20] found that patients in THA group experienced significantly less pain, but they only include limited trials in the pooled results.

Patients’ quality of life

For EQ-5D scores, our conclusion agreed with other studies that THA has better overall patients’ quality of life ([24]; Y [28, 48, 49].). We did the subgroup analysis and found that the difference became obvious 2 years after the surgery.

Common complications

Our result found no difference in terms of common complications, and we believed further studies can hardly change it. Our results are against Liu et al.’s study (Y [28].). In his study, he limited patients’ age to over 75 years old, and we believe the complications may largely be attributed to the patients’ own condition rather than implants type.

Prothesis-related complications

The results show that revision rate is similar with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 47%). After sensitivity analysis, Ravikumar and Marsh’s [41] study was considered as the source because they reported 13-year follow-up results (24% in HA; 6.75% in THA). In meta-analysis that only include RCTs, Metcalfe et al. [32], Liu et al. (Y [28].), and Migliorini et al. [33] are in favor of our results but Migliorini et al. found a higher revision rate in THA within 5 years while in HA after 5 years. Lewis et al. [24] found that THA was superior to HA, but the non-RCTs in his study may influence the evidence grades.

However, data from registries are in contrast to the results from randomized trials because RCTs always have certain selections of enrolled patients. According to national registry studies, dislocation, infection, and periprosthetic fracture are the main reasons for revision [35, 45]. Anterolateral approach, cemented stem, bipolar head, and 36-mm cups are useful methods to reduce revisions and should be considered by the surgeons for the best outcomes for patients [14, 32, 35, 45]. Dislocations are always a concern by clinical doctors because they are the main reason for revision. We found that THA has a higher rate of dislocation compared with HA. The types of head (bipolar vs. unipolar), cups (dual-mobility vs. single cup), age of patients, pre-injury ambulation status, and surgical approaches may cause influence on the dislocation rate. Our conclusion is in line with other reviews and registry reports ([19, 24]; Y [28, 33].; ). Acetabular erosion is a theoretical indication to perform a revision in a painful HA. The pooled data shows higher acetabular erosion rate in HA group. And we found no dissent from other authors. Osteoarthritis also represents an important pillar for the decision on therapy.

Usually, surgeons are conservative about THA due to the elevated risk of dislocation, with the associated risk of subsequent revisions and the death risk in the end. However, our results found that the revision rate is similar between two groups. The possible reason is that THA has higher dislocations rates while HA has higher acetabular erosion rates and thus equals the revision rate between the two groups. The long-term results favor the THA, and surgeons could choose propriate implants and approaches to reduce dislocation rates.

Mortality

We found that the mortality rate was similar in groups, and comparable results were found by other meta-analysis [24, 33, 48, 49]. However, we found that THA has a slightly higher mortality rate 2 years after surgery, and it proves the detective ability of our study. We hypothesize that the early revision caused by dislocations will lead to more deaths in THA group while will be offset by acetabular erosion later. But the result should be interpreted carefully with more studies.

Cost

Three studies mentioned the cost of both techniques. Burgers et al. [5] found that main cost were rehabilitation fares and nursing home care payments in the first year after surgery. Keating et al. [22] found that the cost between groups was not significant, but highlight the high costs of the readmissions in patients who underwent HA. Ravi et al. [39] found that THA reduced health care costs about the index admission 1 year after surgery, relative to HA. Dangelmajer et al. [9] found that patient’s age and medical care payer status were all associated with odds of receiving THA, and patients with private insurance had higher odds of receiving THA. Reducing costs after hip fracture surgery should focus on improving the duration and efficiency of the rehabilitation phase. The economic evidence showed that THA should be more considered because it can cut the cost of readmission and rehabilitation.

Limitations

There are some limitations also needed to be noticed. First, lack of information (implant types, operative approach, etc.), uncontrollability of confounders (medical resources, surgeon experience, etc.), and other factors might affect the credibility of the pooled data despite that we selected the most reliable types of trials. Secondly, we did not set strict inclusion criteria since they have already been considered in the process of RCTs, and the low heterogeneity of these results also proves it. Thirdly, despite that our results suggested the difference between short-term and long-term results in functional outcomes and patients’ quality of life, the long-term reports are still limited.

Therefore, the multicentered and large population-based designs of future research should be considered, and more long-term follow-up surveys should be focused and reported.

Conclusion

Based on the results, we thought HA could be recommended for patients who have cognitive impairment, comorbidities, reduced performance status, and low function demands. And THA should be recommended for patients who are active, healthy, with long life expectancy and young biological age, and have higher demands for functions and quality of life.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

HA:

Hemiarthroplasty

FNFs:

Femoral neck fractures

CNKI:

Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure

CBM:

China Biology Medicine Disc

RRs:

Risk ratios

WMDs:

Weighted mean differences

CIs:

Confidence intervals

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

EQ-5D:

EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire

HHS:

Harris Hip Scores

References

  1. 1.

    Avery PP, Baker RP, Walton MJ, Rooker JC, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Total hip replacement and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg. 2011;93-B:1045–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    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(12):2583–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.E.01373.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bhandari M, Einhorn TA, Guyatt G, Schemitsch EH, Zura RD, Sprague S, et al. Total hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(23):2199–208. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1906190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    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(2):160–5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.89b2.18576.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Burgers PT, Hoogendoorn M, Van Woensel EA, Poolman RW, Bhandari M, Patka P, Van Lieshout EM. Total medical costs of treating femoral neck fracture patients with hemi- or total hip arthroplasty: a cost analysis of a multicenter prospective study. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(6):1999–2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3484-z.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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(8):1549–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1569-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cadossi M, Chiarello E, Savarino L, Tedesco G, Baldini N, Faldini C, Giannini S. 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;95B(5):609–15. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.95b5.31083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chammout G, Kelly-Pettersson P, Hedbeck CJ, Stark A, Mukka S, Sköldenberg O. HOPE-Trial: hemiarthroplasty compared with total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in octogenarians: a randomized controlled trial. JB JS Open Access. 2019;4(2):e0059. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.Oa.18.00059.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dangelmajer S, Yang A, Githens M, Harris AHS, Bishop JA. Disparities in total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty in the management of geriatric femoral neck fractures. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2017;8(3):155–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/2151458517720991.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Dorr LD, Glousman R, Hoy AL, Vanis R, Chandler R. Treatment of femoral neck fractures with total hip replacement versus cemented and noncemented hemiarthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1986;1(1):21–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(86)80006-7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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(6):1782–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2250-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Giannini S, Chiarello E, Cadossi M, Luciani D, Tedesco G. Prosthetic surgery in fragility osteopathy. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2011;23:40–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Goh SK, Samuel M, Su DH, Chan ES, Yeo SJ. Meta-analysis comparing total hip arthroplasty with hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of displaced neck of femur fracture. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(3):400–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.12.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hansson S, Nemes S, Karrholm J, Rogmark C. Reduced risk of reoperation after treatment of femoral neck fractures with total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(5):500–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1348095.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    He JH, Zhou CP, Zhou ZK, Shen B, Yang J, Kang PD, Pei FX. Meta-analysis comparing total hip arthroplasty with hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients over 70 years old. Chin J Traumatol. 2012;15(4):195–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hedbeck CJ, Enocson A, Lapidus G, Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Tidermark J. 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(5):445–50. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.J.00474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hopley C, Stengel D, Ekkernkamp A, Wich M. Primary total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older patients: systematic review. Bmj. 2010;340:c2332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Iorio R, Iannotti F, Mazza D, Speranza A, Massafra C, Guzzini M, et al. Is dual cup mobility better than hemiarthroplasty in patients with dementia and femoral neck fracture? A randomized controlled trial. Sicot j. 2019;5:38. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2019035.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Jameson SS, Lees D, James P, Johnson A, Nachtsheim C, McVie JL, et al. Cemented hemiarthroplasty or hip replacement for intracapsular neck of femur fracture? A comparison of 7732 matched patients using national data. Injury. 2013;44(12):1940–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.03.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Johnson JP, Kleiner J, Goodman AD, Gil JA, Daniels AH, Hayda RA. Treatment of femoral neck fractures in patients 45-64 years of age. Injury. 2019;50(3):708–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.11.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kannan A, Kancherla R, McMahon S, Hawdon G, Soral A, Malhotra R. Arthroplasty options in femoral-neck fracture: answers from the national registries. Int Orthop. 2012;36(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1354-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Keating JF, Grant A, Masson N, Scott NW, Forbes JF, Scottish Orthopaedic Trials N. 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;88A(2):249–60. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.E.00215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kim BS, Lim JY, Ha YC. Recent epidemiology of hip fractures in South Korea. Hip Pelvis. 2020;32(3):119–24. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2020.32.3.119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lewis, D. P., Wæver, D., Thorninger, R., & Donnelly, W. J. (2019). Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip arthroplasty for the management of displaced neck of femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty, 34(8), 1837-1843.e1832. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.070.

  25. 25.

    Li K, Song B. Comparison Clin effect Between Artificial femoral head replacement and total hip arhtroplasty on the fracture of neck of femur of elderly. J Clin Med Pract. 2013;17(03):45–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Liao L, Zhao J, Su W, Ding X, Chen L, Luo S. A meta-analysis of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty outcomes for displaced femoral neck fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(7):1021–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1485-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Liu HH, Guan YJ, Wang QX, Liang XL. A comparision of the efficacy and quality of life between hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement in the treatment of femoral neck fracture in the elderly. Chin J Gerontol. 2017;37(06):1457–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Liu Y, Chen X, Zhang P, Jiang B. Comparing total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture in the active elderly over 75 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01725-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Macaulay W, Nellans KW, Garvin KL, Iorio R, Healy WL, Rosenwasser MP, other members of the, D. C. 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(6 Suppl 1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.05.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Macaulay W, Nellans KW, Iorio R, Garvin KL, Healy WL, Rosenwasser MP. Total hip arthroplasty is less painful at 12 months compared with hemiarthroplasty in treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture. HSS J. 2007;4(1):48–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-007-9061-4.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Man D. Effect comparison between total hip replacement and bipolar femoral head replacement in treatment of elderly patients with femoral neck fracture. J Clin Med Pract. 2014;18(7):41–3. https://doi.org/10.7619/jcmp.201407012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Metcalfe D, Judge A, Perry DC, Gabbe B, Zogg CK, Costa ML. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for independently mobile older adults with intracapsular hip fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2590-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Migliorini F, Trivellas A, Driessen A, Quack V, El Mansy Y, Schenker H, et al. Hemiarthroplasty versus total arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03409-3.

  34. 34.

    Miyamoto RG, Kaplan KM, Levine BR, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD. Surgical management of hip fractures: an evidence-based review of the literature. I: femoral neck fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):596–607. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200810000-00005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Moerman S, Mathijssen NMC, Tuinebreijer WE, Vochteloo AJH, Nelissen R. Hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in 30,830 patients with hip fractures: data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register on revision and risk factors for revision. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(5):509–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1499069.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Mouzopoulos G, Stamatakos M, Arabatzi H, Vasiliadis G, Batanis G, Tsembeli A, et al. The four-year functional result after a displaced subcapital hip fracture treated with three different surgical options. Int Orthop. 2008;32(3):367–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0321-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Skinner P, Ellery DRJ, 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(5):291–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Parker MJ, Cawley S. Treatment of the displaced intracapsular fracture for the ‘fitter’ elderly patients: a randomised trial of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for 105 patients. Injury. 2019;50(11):2009–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2019.09.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ravi B, Pincus D, Khan H, Wasserstein D, Jenkinson R, Kreder HJ. Comparing complications and costs of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: a propensity score-matched, population-based study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(7):572–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    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. 2000a;31(10):793–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(00)00125-x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    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. 2000b;31(10):793–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Sharma V, Awasthi B, Kumar K, Kohli N, Katoch P. Outcome analysis of hemiarthroplasty vs. total hip replacement in displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(5):RC11–3. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/18638.7877.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Sonaje JC, Meena PK, Bansiwal RC, Bobade SS. Comparison of functional outcome of bipolar hip arthroplasty and total hip replacement in displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly in a developing country: a 2-year prospective study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28(3):493–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2057-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Song Q. Comparison of effect of total hip replacement and artificial head of femur replacement in patients with failed femoral neck fracture. Chin J Prim Med Pharm. 2014;21(12):1820–2.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Stucinskas J, Grigaitis K, Smailys A, Robertsson O, Tarasevicius S. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty in femoral neck fracture patients: results from Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register. Hip Int. 2020;1120700020907124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020907124.

  46. 46.

    Tol MC, van den Bekerom MP, Sierevelt IN, Hilverdink EF, Raaymakers EL, Goslings JC. Hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a displaced intracapsular fracture in active elderly patients: 12-year follow-up of randomised trial. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(2):250–4. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0479.R1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    van den Bekerom MPJ, Hilverdink EF, Sierevelt IN, Reuling EMBP, 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 Bri. 2010;92B(10):1422–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Wang F, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Ma C, Feng X. Comparison of bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0696-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Yoo JI, Cha YH, Kim JT, Park CH. Clinical outcomes of bipolar hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty: assessing the potential impact of cement use and pre-injury activity levels in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Hip Pelvis. 2019;31(2):63–74. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2019.31.2.63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Yu L, Wang Y, Chen J. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(8):2235–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2293-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Zhao Y, Fu D, Chen K, Li G, Cai Z, Shi Y, Yin X. Outcome of hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement for active elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis of 8 randomized clinical trials. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e98071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098071.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Zi-Sheng A, You-Shui G, Zhi-Zhen J, Ting Y, Chang-Qing Z. Hemiarthroplasty vs primary total hip arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in the elderly: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(4):583–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

Supported by the Sichuan Science and Technology Program (No.2019YJ0031)

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

TXM conceived the methods of the study; performed the database search, the article selection, and data extraction processes; performed the statistical analysis; and drafted the manuscript. WD conceived the methods of the study; performed the database search, the article selection, and data extraction processes; and drafted the manuscript. CJL conceived the methods of the study, helped with the data extraction process, and drafted the manuscript. LY, LPF, NN, and ZZZ helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zongke Zhou or Ning Ning.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This meta-analysis and all the included studies meet all the ethical standards described in the declaration of Helsinki. No ethical committee approval was required for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declared no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, X., Wang, D., Liu, Y. et al. The comparison between total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on 25 randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 15, 596 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02122-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Total hip arthroplasty
  • Hemiarthroplasty
  • Femoral neck fractures
  • Randomized controlled trials