Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Feb;17(2):361-372.
doi: 10.1111/os.14339. Epub 2024 Dec 26.

The Health-Related Quality of Life for Cemented Versus Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty in Elderly Patients With Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Mohanad Samaheen  1 , Maen Mohammad  1 , Mikhail Salzmann  2 , Nikolai Ramadanov  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The Health-Related Quality of Life for Cemented Versus Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty in Elderly Patients With Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Mohanad Samaheen et al. Orthop Surg. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: Femoral neck fractures in the elderly are a global health issue, with the choice between cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty remaining a topic of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of the two surgical options on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality, and functional outcomes.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cemented with uncemented hemiarthroplasty in patients aged 50 years and older with femoral neck fractures. The primary outcome of interest was HRQoL as measured by the European Quality of Life 5-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) score. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgical, general, and local complications.

Results: We included 20 RCTs with a total of 3680 patients with femoral neck fractures, of whom 1871 (50.5%) underwent cemented and 1809 (49.5%) uncemented hemiarthroplasty. The follow-up ranged from 1 to 6 years. The early (after 3-4 months) EQ-5D utility score (MD 0.07; 95% CI 0.03-0.12; p = 0.003; I 2 = 22%) and the 12-month EQ-5D utility score (MD 0.08; 95% CI 0.00-0.16; p = 0.04; I 2 = 67%) suggested an improved HRQoL in the cemented hemiarthroplasty group. The outcomes of 1-year mortality, requirement for additional surgeries, surgery duration, risk of pulmonary embolism, pressure sores or ulcers, intraoperative fractures, and periprosthetic or postoperative fractures demonstrated significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusions: The use of cemented hemiarthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures presented better results when compared to uncemented hemiarthroplasty in terms of HRQoL during the first year after surgery and greater mortality reduction at 1 year follow-up and reduced the need for further surgery. Therefore, the use of cemented hemiarthroplasty may be preferred for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.

Keywords: cemented; health‐related quality of life; hemiarthroplasty; hip fractures; uncemented.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flowchart for study screening and selection.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
(a) Risks of bias of individual studies. (b) The sum of risk of bias assessment. (c) Funnel plot of the most reported outcome (length of surgery).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
(a) Comparison of the EQ‐5D utility score at follow‐up after 3–4 months. (b) Comparison of the EQ‐5D utility score at follow‐up of 12 months. CI, confidence interval; IV, inverse variance.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
(a) Comparison of mortality rates at follow‐up of 4 months. Mantel–Haenszel. Comparison of mortality rates at follow‐up of 12 months. (c) Comparison of mortality rates at follow‐up of 2 years. CI, confidence interval; M–H, Mantel–Haenszel.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Burge R., Dawson‐Hughes B., Solomon D. H., Wong J. B., King A., and Tosteson A., “Incidence and Economic Burden of Osteoporosis‐Related Fractures in the United States, 2005–2025,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 22, no. 3 (2007): 465–475, 10.1359/JBMR.061113. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cooper C., Campion G., and Melton L. J., “Hip Fractures in the Elderly: A World‐Wide Projection,” Osteoporosis International 2, no. 6 (1992): 285–289, 10.1007/BF01623184. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Griffin X. L., Parsons N., Achten J., Fernandez M., and Costa M. L., “Recovery of Health‐Related Quality of Life in a United Kingdom Hip Fracture Population: The Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation—A Prospective Cohort Study,” Bone and Joint Journal 97‐B, no. 3 (2015): 372–382, 10.1302/0301-620X.97B3.35738/LETTERTOEDITOR. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johnell O. and Kanis J. A., “An Estimate of the Worldwide Prevalence, Mortality and Disability Associated With Hip Fracture,” Osteoporosis International 15, no. 11 (2004): 897–902, 10.1007/S00198-004-1627-0/METRICS. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chan G. K., Aladwan R., Hook S. E., Rogers B. A., Ricketts D., and Stott P., “Thompson Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture Is Associated With Increased Risk of Dislocation,” Journal of Arthroplasty 35, no. 6 (2020): 1606–1613, 10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.061. - DOI - PubMed