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.

Log in to download
Complexity

Get The Data

For getting access to data download links please read and accept the end-user license agreement.
Your Data License
  • 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
StudyDescription of the previous studies used in this research.stringrequired : 1
Outcome_FunctionDescription of the reported outcomes from the participants who underwent Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty.for the research study.stringrequired : 1
MonthDescription of the duration in months of the effect of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty.integerlevel : Ratio
YearDescription of the duration in years of the effect of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty.string-
Group_1Description of the type of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty procedure used in the first group.stringrequired : 1
Group_2Description of the type of Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty procedure used in the second group.stringrequired : 1
Population_SizeShows the number of participants or population size in a certain group that received either Bipolar or Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty procedure.integerrequired : 1level : Ratio
StatisticDescription of the measurable characteristic of a sample population.string-
ResultResults of the study.numberlevel : Ratio
ProbabilityEffectiveness of the result based on the hypothesis of the study.numberlevel : Ratio
Study_P_ValueStatistical significance of the results of the study.string-
FavorsDescription of which method is more effective.stringrequired : 1

Data Preview

StudyOutcome FunctionMonthYearGroup 1Group 2Population SizeStatisticResultProbabilityStudy P ValueFavors
Calder et al 1996Return of Preinjury1.04 years to 2.4 yearsMonk BipolarThompson Unipolar250Risk ratio1.410.05Favors Bipolar arthroplasty
Calder et al 1996No Limp1.04 years to 2.4 yearsMonk BipolarThompson Unipolar250Risk ratio1.220.45NS
Calder et al 1996Harris Score1.04 years to 2.4 yearsMonk BipolarThompson Unipolar250p=0.23NS
Raia et al 2003Remain Community Ambulators12.0BipolarUnipolar115Risk ratio0.980.88NS
Raia et al 2003Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score-Raw Score12.0BipolarUnipolar115Mean difference0.1p=0.99NS
Raia et al 2003Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score-Mobility12.0BipolarUnipolar115Mean difference-0.5p=0.94NS
Raia et al 2003Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment score-Self Care12.0BipolarUnipolar115Mean difference4.1p=0.65NS
Raia et al 2003Short Form Score- Physical Function3.0BipolarUnipolar115Mean difference-3.2>.05NS
Raia et al 2003Short Form Score- Physical Function12.0BipolarUnipolar115Mean difference2.6>.05NS
Raia et al 2003Short Form Score- Bodily Pain3.0BipolarUnipolar115Mean difference-1.8>.05NS