Skip to main content

Unipolar versus bipolar Exeter hip hemiarthroplasty: a prospective cohort study on 830 consecutive hips in patients with femoral neck fractures

International Orthopaedics volume 36, pages 711–717 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

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.

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Calder SJ, Anderson GH, Jagger C, Harper WM, Gregg PJ (1996) Unipolar or bipolar prosthesis for displaced intracapsular hip fracture in octogenarians: a randomised prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:391–394

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cornell CN, Levine D, O'Doherty J, Lyden J (1998) Unipolar versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res 348:67–71

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davison JN, Calder SJ, Anderson GH, Ward G, Jagger C, Harper WM, Gregg PJ (2001) 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 83:206–212

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Raia FJ, Chapman CB, Herrera MF, Schweppe MW, Michelsen CB, Rosenwasser MP (2003) Unipolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in the elderly? Clin Orthop Relat Res 414:259–265

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hedbeck CJ, Blomfeldt R, Lapidus G, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Tidermark J (2011) Unipolar hemiarthroplasty versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty in the most elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomised, controlled trial. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1213-y

  6. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Reports. http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/. Accessed 10 April 2011

  7. Woo RY, Morrey BF (1982) Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:1295–1306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Li E, Meding JB, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM (1999) The natural history of a posteriorly dislocated total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 14:964–968

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kotwal RS, Ganapathi M, John A, Maheson M, Jones SA (2009) Outcome of treatment for dislocation after primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:321–326

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hardinge K (1982) The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64:17–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Garden RS (1961) Low-angle fixation in fractures of the femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg 43-B:647–663

    Google Scholar 

  12. Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS, Azegami S (2010) Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD001706. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001706.pub4

  13. Roberts C, Parker MJ (2002) Austin-Moore hemiarthroplasty for failed osteosynthesis of intracapsular proximal femoral fractures. Injury 33:423–426

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Enocson A, Tidermark J, Törnkvist H, Lapidus LJ (2008) Dislocation of hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture: better outcome after the anterolateral approach in a prospective cohort study on 739 consecutive hips. Acta Orthop 79:211–217

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lu-Yao GL, Keller RB, Littenberg B, Wennberg JE (1994) Outcomes after displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis of one hundred and six published reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:15–25

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baker RP, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC (2006) 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 88:2583–2589

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hedbeck CJ, Enocson A, Lapidus G, Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Tidermark J (2011) 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 93:445–450

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pajarinen J, Savolainen V, Tulikoura I, Lindahl J, Hirvensalo E (2003) Factors predisposing to dislocation of the Thompson hemiarthroplasty: 22 dislocations in 338 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 74:45–48

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frihagen F, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE (2007) Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 335:1251–1254

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Varley J, Parker MJ (2004) Stability of hip hemiarthroplasties. Int Orthop 28:274–277

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Keene GS, Parker MJ (1993) Hemiarthroplasty of the hip—the anterior or posterior approach? A comparison of surgical approaches. Injury 24:611–613

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Enocson A, Pettersson H, Ponzer S, Törnkvist H, Dalen N, Tidermark J (2009) Quality of life after dislocation of hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study on 319 patients with femoral neck fractures with a one-year follow-up. Qual Life Res 18:1177–1184

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Haidukewych GJ, Boberg CJ (2006) Hospital cost of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:290–294

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Blewitt N, Mortimore S (1992) Outcome of dislocation after hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of the femur. Injury 23:320–322

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams JT, Ragland PS, Clarke S (2007) Constrained liners for the unstable hip following total hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Int Orthop 31:273–277

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Boyer B, Philippot R, Geringer J, Farizon F (2011) Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility socket to prevent dislocation: a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1289-4

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Orthopaedic Unit, Stockholm Söder Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Anders Enocson, Carl Johan Hedbeck, Hans Törnkvist, Jan Tidermark & Lasse J. Lapidus

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Capio S:t Görans Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Jan Tidermark

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Stockholm Söder Hospital, 118 83, Stockholm, Sweden

    Anders Enocson

Authors
  1. Anders Enocson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carl Johan Hedbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans Törnkvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Tidermark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lasse J. Lapidus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Enocson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Enocson, A., Hedbeck, C.J., Törnkvist, H. et al. Unipolar versus bipolar Exeter hip hemiarthroplasty: a prospective cohort study on 830 consecutive hips in patients with femoral neck fractures. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 36, 711–717 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1326-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1326-3

Keywords

  • Femoral Neck Fracture
  • Closed Reduction
  • Dislocation Rate
  • Displace Femoral Neck Fracture
  • Bipolar Prosthesis