Others titles
- Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty in the Management of Hip Fractures
- AAOS Guidelines on Hip Fracture Management
- Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty Functions in the Management of Hip Fractures
- Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty Knee Function in Elderly Hip Fractures
- Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hip Hemiarthroplasty Function in Elderly Hip Fractures
- Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty Function in Elderly Hip Femoral Neck Fractures
Keywords
- Hip Fractures
- Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty
- Hip Fractures in the Elderly
- Hemiarthroplasty Knee
- Hip Hemiarthroplasty
- Femoral Neck Fractures
Bipolar VS Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty Function in Elderly Hip Fractures

This dataset shows moderate evidence that supports the outcomes of unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures like unstable (displaced) femoral neck fractures are similar.
Get The Data
- Research
Non-Commercial,
Share-Alike,
Attribution Free Forever
- Commercial
Commercial Use,
Remix & Adapt,
White Label Log in to download
Description
One high strength study (Davison et al 49) and seven moderate strength (Raia et al 74, Cornell et al 75, Jeffcote et al 76, Calder et al 60, Calder et al 77, Hedbeck et al 78, Kenzora et al 79) Kenzora studies compared unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures.
All of the included studies showed equivalence in functional and radiographic outcomes, suggesting no significant benefit for bipolar articulation over unipolar hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fracture. A meta-analysis of mortality at six months and one year show no significant differences between unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty.
About this Dataset
Data Info
Date Created | 2014-09-05 |
---|---|
Last Modified | 2014-09-05 |
Version | 2014-09-05 |
Update Frequency |
Never |
Temporal Coverage |
1995-01-01 to 2016-03-01 |
Spatial Coverage |
United States |
Source | John Snow Labs; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS); |
Source License URL | |
Source License Requirements |
N/A |
Source Citation |
N/A |
Keywords | Hip Fractures, Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty, Hip Fractures in the Elderly, Hemiarthroplasty Knee, Hip Hemiarthroplasty, Femoral Neck Fractures |
Other Titles | Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty in the Management of Hip Fractures, AAOS Guidelines on Hip Fracture Management, Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty Functions in the Management of Hip Fractures, Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty Knee Function in Elderly Hip Fractures, Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hip Hemiarthroplasty Function in Elderly Hip Fractures, Bipolar Versus Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty Function in Elderly Hip Femoral Neck Fractures |
Data Fields
Name | Description | Type | Constraints |
---|---|---|---|
Study | Description of the previous studies used in this research. | string | required : 1 |
Outcome_Function | Description of the reported outcomes from the participants who underwent Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty.for the research study. | string | required : 1 |
Month | Description of the duration in months of the effect of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty. | integer | level : Ratio |
Year | Description of the duration in years of the effect of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty. | string | - |
Group_1 | Description of the type of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty procedure used in the first group. | string | required : 1 |
Group_2 | Description of the type of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty procedure used in the second group. | string | required : 1 |
Population_Size | Shows the number of participants or population size in a certain group that received either Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty procedure. | integer | level : Ratiorequired : 1 |
Statistic | Description of the measurable characteristic of a sample population. | string | - |
Result | Results of the study. | number | level : Ratio |
Probability | Effectiveness of the result based on the hypothesis of the study. | number | level : Ratio |
Study_P_Value | Statistical significance of the results of the study. | string | - |
Favors | Description of which method is more effective. | string | required : 1 |
Data Preview
Study | Outcome Function | Month | Year | Group 1 | Group 2 | Population Size | Statistic | Result | Probability | Study P Value | Favors |
Calder et al 1996 | Return of Preinjury | 1.04 years to 2.4 years | Monk Bipolar | Thompson Unipolar | 250 | Risk ratio | 1.41 | 0.05 | Favors Bipolar arthroplasty | ||
Calder et al 1996 | No Limp | 1.04 years to 2.4 years | Monk Bipolar | Thompson Unipolar | 250 | Risk ratio | 1.22 | 0.45 | NS | ||
Calder et al 1996 | Harris Score | 1.04 years to 2.4 years | Monk Bipolar | Thompson Unipolar | 250 | p=0.23 | NS | ||||
Raia et al 2003 | Remain Community Ambulators | 12.0 | Bipolar | Unipolar | 115 | Risk ratio | 0.98 | 0.88 | NS | ||
Raia et al 2003 | Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score-Raw Score | 12.0 | Bipolar | Unipolar | 115 | Mean difference | 0.1 | p=0.99 | NS | ||
Raia et al 2003 | Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score-Mobility | 12.0 | Bipolar | Unipolar | 115 | Mean difference | -0.5 | p=0.94 | NS | ||
Raia et al 2003 | Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score-Self Care | 12.0 | Bipolar | Unipolar | 115 | Mean difference | 4.1 | p=0.65 | NS | ||
Raia et al 2003 | Short Form Score- Physical Function | 3.0 | Bipolar | Unipolar | 115 | Mean difference | -3.2 | >.05 | NS | ||
Raia et al 2003 | Short Form Score- Physical Function | 12.0 | Bipolar | Unipolar | 115 | Mean difference | 2.6 | >.05 | NS | ||
Raia et al 2003 | Short Form Score- Bodily Pain | 3.0 | Bipolar | Unipolar | 115 | Mean difference | -1.8 | >.05 | NS |