Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular hip fractures

  • Parker M
  • Pryor G
  • Gurusamy K
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We undertook a prospective randomised controlled trial involving 400 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip to determine whether there was any difference in outcome between treatment with a cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty and an uncemented Austin-Moore prosthesis. The surviving patients were followed up for between two and five years by a nurse blinded to the type of prosthesis used.The mean age of the patients was 83 years (61 to 104) and 308 (77%) were women. The degree of residual pain was less in those treated with a cemented prosthesis (p < 0.0001) three months after surgery. Regaining mobility was better in those treated with a cemented implant (p = 0.005) at six months after operation. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to mortality, implant-related complications, re-operations or post-operative medical complications.The use of a cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty resulted in less pain and less deterioration in mobility than an uncemented Austin-Moore prosthesis with no increase in complications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Parker, M. I., Pryor, G., & Gurusamy, K. (2010). Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular hip fractures. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 92-B(1), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.92b1.22753

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free