Seven articles were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that,compared internal fixation with hip replacement,there were statistical significance in the duration of surgery time [WMD = -2.66, 95% CI (-5.25,-0.06), P = 0.05], intra-operative blood loss [WMD = -24.20, 95% CI (-30.38, -18.02), P < 0.000 01], hospital stays time [WMD = -4.72, 95% CI (-5.18, -4.25), P < 0.000 01], bearing load time [WMD = -29.54, 95% CI (-30.77, -28.31), P < 0.000 01], total complications rate [WMD = 0.15, 95% CI (0.11, 0.22), P < 0.000 01], the good rate of Harris scores [WMD = 1.09, 95% CI (0.54,1.32), P < 0.05]. However, there were no statistical significance in the rate of deep venous thrombosis [WMD = 1.09, 95% CI (0.47, 2.55), P > 0.05]. CON- CLUSION: Hip replacement (containing FHR or THA) for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures is superior to internal fixa- tion in regards to the duration of surgery time, the mean duration of hosipital stays, mean post-operative down time, intra-opera- tive blood loss, the rate of post-operative good Harris scores. But there is not enough evidence to show any difference between hip replacement (containing THA or FHR) and internal fixation in regards to the rate of deep venous thrombosis. However, internal fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures is superior to hip replacement (containing FHR or THA) in regards to total complications rate.