Is cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty a safe treatment for femoral neck fracture in elderly patients?
Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2015
Fatih Karaaslan, emre yurdakul, Murat Korkmaz, Fuat Duygulu, Ali Baktır
Controversy exists regarding the use of cement in hemiarthroplasty when treating a displaced femoral neck fracture in elderly patients. The primary hypothesis of this study was that the use of cement would afford better visual analog pain and activity scores in elderly patients. This study included 133 patients over 65 years of age admitted to our clinics from 2006 to 2012 for the surgical treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture. All patients were treated via hemiarthroplasty. The patients (66 males, 67 females; mean age: 78.16 years; range: 60-110 years) were followed-up regularly. All patients were divided into one of two groups: group A was treated with cement; and group B without. Both groups were compared in terms of preoperative features (demographics and associated diseases), pre- and postoperative complications, mortality rates, pain and activity levels, and hip scores. Hospitalization time, average surgical duration, and time from fracture to operation were also recorded. Mean follow-up duration was 30.9 (range: 5-51) months. We found no significant between-groups differences in terms of length of hospital stay, Harris Hip Score, complications, or follow-up mortality rates. Walking ability and pain scores were better in the cemented group in the early follow-up period. Duration of surgery and perioperative mortality rates were somewhat lower in the cementless group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The use of cement during hip hemiarthroplasty in patients over 65 years of age had no negative impact on mortality or morbidity. Hemodynamic changes during cement application are important, but it is noteworthy that patients fitted with cemented endoprostheses had increased levels of activity and lower pain levels.
|Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals)||3||100%|
|Readers by professional status||Count||As %|
|Student > Bachelor||6||14%|
|Student > Master||5||12%|
|Student > Ph. D. Student||4||10%|
|Readers by discipline||Count||As %|
|Medicine and Dentistry||18||43%|
|Nursing and Health Professions||5||12%|
|Sports and Recreations||2||5%|
|Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology||1||2%|