Internal fixation versus arthroplasty for intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults

Background Displaced intracapsular fractures may be treated by either reduction and internal fixation, which preserves the femoral head, or by replacement of the femoral head with an arthroplasty. Objectives To review all randomised controlled trials that have compared internal fixation with arthroplasty for intracapsular femoral fractures in adults. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register ( December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the UK National Research Register, several orthopaedic journals, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists where possible. Selection criteria All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing internal fixation with arthroplasty for intracapsular hip fractures in adults. Data collection and analysis Trial quality was assessed by use of a 10 item scale. At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trialists. After grouping into three broad categories, comparable groups of trials were subgrouped and where appropriate, data were pooled using the fixed-effect model. Main results Seventeen trials involving 2694 participants were included. Length of surgery, operative blood loss, need for blood transfusion and risk of deep wound infection were significantly less for internal fixation compared with arthroplasty. Arthroplasty had a significantly lower re-operation rate in comparison with fixation. No definite differences for hospital stay, mortality, or regain of same residential state were found. Limited information from some studies suggested pain was less and function was better for a cemented arthroplasty in comparison to fixation. Authors' conclusions Internal fixation is associated with less initial operative trauma but has an increased risk of re-operation on the hip. Definite conclusions cannot be made for differences in pain and residual disability between the two groups. Future studies should concentrate on better reporting of final outcome measures and there is still a need for studies to define which patient groups are better served by the different treatment methods.