Why the study?
Does a cemented unipolar prosthesis improve return to preinjury state compared to a cemented bipolar prosthesis in patients over 80 years of age with displaced intracapsular hip fractures?
Does a cemented unipolar prosthesis improve return to preinjury state compared to a cemented bipolar prosthesis in patients over 80 years of age with displaced intracapsular hip fractures?
In octogenarians with displaced intracapsular hip fractures, a cheaper unipolar prosthesis provides a significantly better return to preinjury state compared to a bipolar prosthesis.
Supports preferring cemented unipolar over bipolar hemiarthroplasty in octogenarians with displaced hip fractures; challenges prevailing use of bipolar designs.
We performed a randomised prospective trial to compare a cemented unipolar prosthesis (Thompson) with a cemented bipolar prosthesis (Monk) in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip in patients over 80 years of age. Patients with a mental test score of less than 5/13 were excluded but the mortality was still about 30% at one year in both groups. We therefore feel that subjective criteria such as the level of pain and the return to the preinjury state are of paramount importance. Two years after operation there was no statistical difference between the rate of complications in the two groups. After adjusting for confounding factors such as differences in the level of function before injury between the groups, the degree of return to the preinjury state was significantly greater (p = 0.04) when using the unipolar prosthesis, which is one-quarter of the price of the bipolar. We cannot therefore justify the use of an expensive bipolar prosthesis in patients over 80 years of age.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Calder et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: