There is good evidence that cementing the prostheses in place will reduce post-operative pain and lead to better mobility. From the trials to date there is no evidence of any difference in outcome between bipolar and unipolar prosthesis. There is some evidence that a total hip replacement leads to better functional outcome than a hemiarthroplasty. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.
Unipolar or bipolar prosthesis for displaced intracapsular hip fracture in octogenarians: a randomised prospective study.
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.