A Comparative Study of Posterior Approach versus Lateral Approach in Surgical Management of Intra-capsular Neck Femur Fractures

Prasad Aparajit, Vinay Yadav, M. R. Koichade


Aims and Objective: The present study was undertaken to evaluate and compared relevant early surgical complications rates after posterior and lateral approach.

Methods: A total 80 patients of either sex, age between 50-80 years with intracapsular neck femur fracture were operated with hemiarthroplasty. Patients were divided in two equal groups i.e. group A and B operated with posterior and lateral approach respectively. Several variables including age, sex, operative time, blood loss, early surgical and post-operative complications, post-operative care, hip function and final outcome measures were noted and compared between two groups.

Results: The mean age of patients was 64.30 5.39 years in group A and 65.85 5.64 years in group B with female to male ratio was 1.6:1 for group A and 1.4:1 for group B. Operating time for group A and for group B was 48.435.38 and 47.507.59 minutes respectively. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 144.7517.68 ml in group A and 148.3815.03 ml in group B. The most common complication in both the groups was infection and rate in group A was 17.50% and in group B was 12.50%. Posterior approach carries an increased risk of prosthetic dislocation as compared to lateral approach. There was no intraoperative mortality seen in follow up period. The rate of secondary procedures was high with posterior approach (12.5%) as compared to lateral approach (7.5%). The average Harris Hip Score was 85.62% in group A and 83.40% in group B.

Conclusion: The rate of early surgical complications and outcome measures after posterior and lateral approaches is not significantly different. A larger randomized trial or may be a multicentre trial can further improve the interpretation of the results.


Intracapsular neck femur fracture, Hemiarthroplasty Posterior approach, Lateral approach, Harris Hip Score

Full Text:



Singer BR, McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM et al. Epidemiology of fractures in 15,000 adults: the influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80(2):243-248.

Dennison E, Mohamed MA, Cooper C. Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2006;32(4):617-629.

Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott N W, Forbes J F. Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (2): 249-260.

Frihagen F, Nordsletten L, Madsen J E. Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2007;335 (7632): 1251-1254.

Gjertsen JE, Vinje T, Engesaeter LB, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Furnes O et al. Internal screw fixation compared with bipolar hemiarthroplasty for treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92 (3):619-628.

Stoen RO, Lofthus CM, Nordsletten L, Madsen JE, Frihagen F. Randomized trial of hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: no differences at 6 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (1): 360-367.

Parker MJ, Khan RJ, Crawford J, Pryor GA. Hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. A randomised trial of 455 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84 (8):1150-1155.

Hardinge K. The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1982; 64 (1):17-19.

Moore A T. The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957;39-A(4): 811-827.

Havelin LI, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB, Fenstad AM, Johannessen CB, Dybvik E, Fjeldsgaard K, Gundersen T: The Norwegian Arthroplast Register. Annual report 2016. ISBN: 978-82-91847-21-4 ISSN: 1893-8914 2016.

Parker MJ, Dynan Y. Is Pauwels classification still valid? Injury 1998;29(7):521-523.

Barber TC, Roger DJ, Goodman SB, Schurman DJ. Early outcome of total hip arthroplasty using the direct lateral Vs the posterior surgical approach 1996;19:873875.

Weale E, Newman P, Ferguson IT, Bannister GC. Nerve injury after posterior and direct lateral approaches for hip replacement. A clinical and electrophysiological study. The Journal of bone and joint surgery 1996;78:899902.

Mukka SS, Sayed-Noor AS. An update on surgical approaches in hip arthoplasty: Lateral versus posterior approach. HIP International 2014;24:S711.

Moore AT. The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957;39-A(4): 811-827.

Parker MJ. Hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip in elderly men. Bone Jt J 2015;97B(7):992996.

Tolani et al. Proximal Femoral Nail - A Minimally Invasive Method for Stabilization of Subtrochanteric Femoral Fractures. International Journal of Scientific Research 2014;3(1):20-22.

Sipil J, Hyvnen P, Partanen J, Ristiniemi J and Jalovaara P. Early revision after hemiarthroplasty and osteosynthesis of cervical hip fractureShort-term function decreased, mortality unchanged in 102 patients, Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 2004; 75:4,402-407.

Parker MJ, Stockton G. Internal fixation implants for intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(4):CD001467.

Keene GS, Parker MJ. Hemiarthroplasty of the hip the anterior or posterior approach? A comparison of surgical approaches. Injury [Internet]. 1993;24(9):611613.

Jameson SS, Kyle J, Baker PN, Mason J, Deehan DJ, McMurtry IA, Reed MR. Patient and implant survival following 4323 total hip replacements for acute femoral neck fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012, 94-B (11) 1557-1566.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7439/ijbar.v8i3.4063

Copyright (c) 2017 International Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.