title: Randomized trial of hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: no differences at 6 years.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Hemiarthroplasty has been shown superior to internal fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) in the first 2 years. However, there are unanswered questions about the performance of hemiarthroplasty over the longer term compared with internal fixation.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We sought to compare hemiarthroplasty with internal fixation in terms of (1) outcomes scores for pain, hip function, and quality of life at a minimum of 5 years after surgery in a randomized trial. A secondary purpose was to compare (2) patient survival and (3) frequency of reoperation in the two groups.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 222 consecutive patients older than 60 years, including those cognitively impaired, with FNF were randomized to either internal fixation with two parallel screws or bipolar hemiarthroplasty. At a minimum followup of 4.9 years (mean, 5.9 years; range, 4.9-7.2 years), 68 of the 70 surviving patients were examined by a study nurse and study physiotherapist blinded to initial treatment. Questionnaires on hip function (Harris hip score), quality of life (Eq5D), and activity of daily living function (Barthel ADL) were administered. The Barthel ADL index score was split into good function (score 95 or 100) and reduced function (score below 95).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean survival of the groups was similar with 66.4% (73 of 110) of the patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty and 70.5% (79 of 112) of the patients undergoing internal fixation having died since surgery (p = 0.51). Only 12 of 31 living patients in the internal fixation group had retained their native hips at a mean of 6 years. Between 2 and 6 years, there were two new major reoperations (both in the internal fixation group, for avascular necrosis and deep wound infection). The mean Harris hip score was 66 (SD 19) and 67 (SD 20) in the internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty groups, respectively (p = 0.96). The mean Eq5D index was 0.50 (SD 0.40) in the internal fixation group and 0.34 (SD 0.36) in the hemiarthroplasty group (p = 0.10). Function in terms of ADLs was comparable between the groups; of the patients in the internal fixation group, 42% reported good function on the Barthel ADL index, and the corresponding number in the hemiarthroplasty group was 51% (p = 0.44).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Hemiarthroplasty has predictable and good long-term results after FNF and is the treatment of choice compared with internal fixation. Further studies will evaluate if total hip arthroplasty has advantages over hemiarthroplasty in patients with fracture with long life expectancy.
authors: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, r.o.stoen@medisin.uio.no.
authors: Ragnhild Øydna
authors: RØ
authors: Støen
authors: Cathrine M
authors: CM
authors: Lofthus
authors: Lars
authors: L
authors: Nordsletten
authors: Jan Erik
authors: JE
authors: Madsen
authors: Frede
authors: F
authors: Frihagen
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D005265:Femoral Neck Fractures / Q000601:surgery*; D005593:Fracture Fixation, Internal / Q000379:methods*; D062785:Hemiarthroplasty / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011788:Quality of Life; D020127:Recovery of Function / Q000502:physiology; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references: J Orthop Trauma. 2009 Jul;23(6):395-402
references: 19550224
references: BMC Geriatr. 2013 Mar 13;13:25
references: 23496953
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92(3):619-28
references: 20194320
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Nov;84(8):1150-5
references: 12463661
references: Injury. 2008 Oct;39(10):1147-56
references: 18656868
references: Int Orthop. 2012 Oct;36(10):2015-20
references: 22588693
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Sep;85(9):1673-81
references: 12954824
references: Osteoporos Int. 2004 Jul;15(7):567-74
references: 14730422
references: Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
references: 14258950
references: Bone. 2003 May;32(5):468-73
references: 12753862
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Aug;88(8):1817-25
references: 16882907
references: Osteoporos Int. 1992 Nov;2(6):285-9
references: 1421796
references: Am J Med. 1997 Aug 18;103(2A):12S-17S; discussion 17S-19S
references: 9302893
references: J Orthop Sci. 2008 Jul;13(4):313-7
references: 18696188
references: Acta Orthop. 2006 Jun;77(3):359-67
references: 16819672
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964 Mar;46:223-40
references: 14129675
references: Qual Life Res. 2003 Dec;12(8):1069-79
references: 14651424
references: Injury. 2010 Apr;41(4):370-3
references: 19879576
references: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 May 20;12:105
references: 21599967
references: Ann Intern Med. 2010 Mar 16;152(6):380-90
references: 20231569
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD001708
references: 17054139
references: Med Eng Phys. 2011 Jan;33(1):96-105
references: 20951626
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Mar;84(2):183-8
references: 11922358
references: J Arthroplasty. 2005 Oct;20(7):892-7
references: 16230241
references: Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012 Jan;20(1):36-42
references: 22126919
references: Health Technol Assess. 2011 Oct;15(36):1-74
references: 21978400
references: J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Mar;22(3):465-75
references: 17144789
references: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Dec;132(12):1789-96
references: 22983096
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Dec;88(12):2583-9
references: 17142407
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 2;93(5):445-50
references: 21368076
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16;(6):CD001706
references: 20556753
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Oct;92(10):1422-8
references: 20884982
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Mar;92(3):406-12
references: 20190313
references: BMJ. 2007 Dec 15;335(7632):1251-4
references: 18056740
references: Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
references: 10109801
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737-55
references: 5783851
references: Bone. 2009 Dec;45(6):1084-90
references: 19664735
references: Osteoporos Int. 2012 Oct;23(10):2527-34
references: 22246602
references: Osteoporos Int. 2012 Jun;23(6):1711-9
references: 21997224