Unipolar versus bipolar Exeter hip hemiarthroplasty: a prospective cohort study on 830 consecutive hips in patients with femoral neck fractures.
ABSTRACT Hip replacement using a hemiarthroplasty (HA) is a common surgical procedure in elderly patients with fractures of the femoral neck. Data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register suggest that there is a higher risk for revision surgery with the bipolar HA compared with the unipolar HA.
In this study we analysed the reoperation and the dislocation rates for Exeter HAs in patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture, comparing the unipolar and bipolar prosthetic designs. Additionally, we compared the outcome for HAs performed as a primary intervention with those performed secondary to failed internal fixation.
We studied 830 consecutive Exeter HAs (427 unipolar and 403 bipolar) performed either as a primary operation for a displaced fracture of the femoral neck or as a secondary procedure after failed internal fixation of a fracture of the femoral neck. Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with reoperation and prosthetic dislocation. Age, gender, the surgeon's experience, indication for surgery (primary or secondary) and type of HA (unipolar or bipolar) were tested as independent variables in the model.
The prosthetic design (uni- or bipolar) had no influence on the risk for reoperation or dislocation, nor had the age, gender or the surgeon's experience. The secondary HAs were associated with a significantly increased risk for reoperation (HR 2.6, CI 1.5-4.5) or dislocation (HR 3.3, CI 1.4-7.3) compared to the primary HAs. We found no difference in the risk for reoperation or dislocation when comparing Exeter unipolar and bipolar HAs, but special attention is called for to reduce the risk of prosthesis dislocation and reoperation after a secondary HA.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An analysis of 20 cases of dislocation from 1000 consecutive hemiarthroplasties performed for fractured femoral necks is presented. A simple scoring system for prefracture status and mobility is described. The overall 6-month mortality rate of 65 per cent after dislocation is discussed.Injury 02/1992; 23(5):320-2. · 1.98 Impact Factor
Article: Outcomes after displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis of one hundred and six published reports.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Methods of meta-analysis, a technique for the combination of data from multiple sources, were applied to analyze 106 reports of the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck. Two years or less after primary internal fixation of a displaced fracture of the femoral neck, a non-union had developed in 33 per cent of the patients and avascular necrosis, in 16 per cent. The rate of performance of a second operation within two years ranged from 20 to 36 per cent after internal fixation and from 6 to 18 per cent after hemiarthroplasty (relative risk, 2.6; 95 per cent confidence interval, 1.4 to 4.6). Conversion to an arthroplasty was the most common reoperation after internal fixation and accounted for about two-thirds of these procedures. The remaining one-third of the reoperations were for removal of the implant or revision of the internal fixation. For the patients who had had a hemiarthroplasty, the most common reoperations were conversion to a total hip replacement, removal or revision of the prosthesis, and débridement of the wound. Although we observed an increase in the rate of mortality at thirty days after primary hemiarthroplasty compared with that after primary internal fixation, the difference was not significant (p = 0.22) and did not persist beyond three months. The absolute difference in perioperative mortality between the two groups was small. An anterior operative approach for arthroplasty consistently was associated with a lower rate of mortality at two months than was a posterior approach. Some reports showed promising results after total hip replacement for displaced fractures of the femoral neck; however, randomized clinical trials are still needed to establish the value of this treatment.The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 02/1994; 76(1):15-25. · 3.27 Impact Factor
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume 02/1982; 64(1):17-9. · 2.83 Impact Factor