Randomised Controlled Trial of Cemented Hemiarthroplasty Versus Uncemented Furlong Hemiarthroplasty

In England each year over 9,000 people fracture their hip. Most of these are elderly females with the fracture occurring after a fall. Approximately half of these fractures are classified as intracapsular fractures because of their close proximity to the hip joint. The majority of these fractures are treated surgically by excising the broken femoral neck and removing the femoral head (ball part of the hip joint) and replacing it with an artificial hip joint. This hip replacement has traditionally been a hemiarthroplasty or sometimes termed a 'half hip replacement' in which only the ball part of the hip joint is replaced.

There are a number of different designs of hemiarthroplasty that may be used. Some of the implants are fixed in place with bone cement whilst the rest are inserted as a press fit without the bone cement. The early designs of implant were all press fit but these designs have now been shown to be inferior to those implants that are fixed in place with bone cement.

There are however a number of newer designs of implant that are coated with a substance (hydroxyapatite) that encourage the bone to grow onto the implant to fix it into place. To date these implants have only been compared to the cement fit implants in only one previous study. This study found no notable difference between the two types of hemiarthroplasty. This study aims to add to the research studies by comparing standard cement fit implant with a hydroxyapatite coated press fit implant to assist in determining the optimum surgical treatment for this common and disabling condition.

Both implants to be used in this study are still being used extensively within the United Kingdom and worldwide to treat this fracture. The study is therefore using two different implants within their recommended area of use, but in which there is uncertainty as to which is the best implant.