Unipolar/Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty
In patients with unstable (displaced) femoral neck fractures, unipolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasty can be equally beneficial.

Rationale

Ten moderate quality studies (Calder 1995, Calder 1996, Davison 2001, Hedbeck 2011, Inngul 2013, Kanto 2014, Khan 2015, Parker 2020, Raia 2003, Stoffel 2013) and one low quality study (Kenzora 1998) included comparing outcomes of unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty for treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures reported no significant differences in most of the outcome measures between the two groups. A meta-analysis of mortality at all time points showed no significant differences between these two groups.

Benefits/Harms of Implementation

Unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty pose similar risk of adverse events. Composite Quality of Life (QoL) and functional outcome measures are overall not significantly between the two groups, although isolated statistically significant outcome differences were noted in some outcome measures that favored the bipolar group.

Outcome Importance

All outcome measures including QoL, function, adverse events, mortality, and pain are relevant to patients. 

Cost Effectiveness/Resource Utilization

Most studies acknowledge lower cost of unipolar heads (Note: cost of implant is dependent on implant pricing at institutions and may not be lower at a specific institution).

Acceptability

No variation in acceptability between the two groups anticipated.

Feasibility

Surgical centers may not have equal access/availability to both unipolar and bipolar heads.

Future Research

Specific cost/resource utilization studies may be useful to compare these two groups.