Majority of the study population in our study, 64.52%, are aged between 60-70 years, followed by 22.58% aged between 70-80 years, and 12.9% aged >80 years.  The majority of (34.8%) study participants were aged between 71 years and 80 years, followed by 61–70 and 50–60 years age group was 30.2 and 18.7%, respectively in Ramasamy et al.’s study [15]. Rakshith Kumar et al.’s study included patients in the range of 50 to 92 years of age, with an average age of 65 years [16].

Garden type 3 and 4 fractures are seen in our study population, with 45.16% having type 3 and 54.84% with Garden’s type 4.  In Sharma et al.’s study, majority had Garden type 4 fracture, followed by 40% with type 2 fracture, and 2% had type 1 [17].

On analysis of presentation to the ED after injury, 58.06% presented within 24 hours of the injury, 38.71% in the 24-48 hours’ period and 3.23% took more than 48 hours to be seen in the hospital.  Majority of the patients at 21% took more than week after the injury to present to the hospital in Sharma et al.’s study.  Only 8% presented within 24 hours of injury, 12% in the 24-72-hour period and 9% 72 hour to a week [17]. Adapureddi et al reported that 15% of the patients were brought to the hospital between 72 hours to 1 week and the remaining 15% presented for treatment after one week and 15% of patients after 3 weeks [18]. In our country, it is a frequent occurrence for patients to delay the hospital visit resulting in a challenging post-operative rehabilitation course.

Assessment of functional score was done using the Harris hip score and at first month follow up, 22.58% had fair functional score and 77.42% had poor functional score. At 3^rd month follow up, 19.35% had excellent functional score, 64.52% had good and 16.13% had fair functional score. At 6^th month follow up, 38.71% had excellent score, 58.06% had good score and 3.23% had fair functional score. Our findings were comparable with those of Sharma et al [17], Adapureddi et al [18], Ramasamy et al [15] and Rakshith Kumar et al [16]. In Sharma et al study, the mean Harris hip score at 12 months was 85.83 7.54, with 42.50% receiving an outstanding score, 37.50% a good score, 12.50% a fair score, and 7.50% a bad outcome [17]. At the final followup of 6 months, the mean Harris hip score in Ravikumar et al.’s study was 88 points with excellent results were observed in 70% cases, good in 20% cases, fair in 10% cases and poor in 0% cases [6].

At first month follow up, the radiological score was excellent in 41.94% and good in the rest 58.06%.  It remained the same at the 3^rd month and 6^th month follow ups. In the research by Sharma et al., there was no evidence of acetabular erosion, painful stem loosening, protrusion acetabuli, or secondary osteoarthritis during the study period [17]. Ravikumar et al. reported no cases of infection, no cases of hip dislocation, no evidence of Stem subsidence, Heterotropic Ossification, Sciatic nerve palsy in any of the patients during the follow upperiod [6]. Adapureddi et al. found no late postoperative complications like loosening, dislocation, erosion, secondary osteoarthritis, protrusion acetabuli or periprosthetic fracture in their study [18].

At 6^th month follow up, 83.87% complained of mild pain and 16.13% had moderate pain. Adapureddi et alstudy .'s found that of all study participants evaluated with regard to their satisfaction with the operation and their capacity to resume their pre-fracture level of activity, 35% were "extremely satisfied," 50% were "somewhat satisfied," and 15% were "not satisfied." The Harris Hip Score, an objective measurement, and the degree of satisfaction, a subjective rating, did not correspond well^.[18]. Most of the participants in Ramasamy et al.’s study had a short hospital stay, less pain, no lasting limp, early mobilization, early return to pre-injury level, and a superior quality of life [15]. Rakshith Kumar et al. reported 35% of their study population had a very satisfied result with regards return to pre-fracture levels of activity, 50% had fairly satisfied result and 15% were not satisfied with the procedure [16].

The primary hypothesis of the current study is that a bipolar prosthesis with its additional artificial joint between the two components of the prosthesis offers better stability and function of the hip joint, and the cemented prosthesis helps in reduction of pain and improves mobility. This was in line with Sharma et al study's which found that cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty offers positive outcomes in terms of range of motion, pain-free motions, return to daily activities, and independent living in older patients with fracture neck of the femur while taking the complication rates into consideration [17].