Skip to main content
. 2006 Oct 18;2006(4):CD001708. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001708.pub2

Blomfeldt 2005.

Methods Randomisation by: sealed envelopes technique
Participants One hospital, Karolinska Institute at Stockholm Söder Hospital, Sweden. 
 60 patients. 
 Characteristics of participants: 
 Mean age: 84 years. 
 Male: 6 (10%) 
 Loss to follow‐up: 1 (2%) 
 Inclusions: short portable mental status questionnaire of less than 3/10 or a diagnosis of dementia, displaced fracture of the femoral neck, aged 70 years plus, able to walk independently 
 Exclusions: pathological fractures, fracture more than 24 hours from occurrence, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis
Interventions 1. Reduction and fixation with two cannulated screws versus 
 2. Uncemented Moore unipolar hemiarthroplasty inserted via an anterolateral modified Hardinge approach
Outcomes Follow‐up for 24 months 
 OUTCOMES COLLECTED BY TRIAL 
 (a) Operative details: length of surgery in minutes, operative blood loss, number of patients transfused 
 (b) Complications related to type of operation: 
 For internal fixation: fixation failure, early redisplacement, non‐union, avascular necrosis, fracture around implant 
 For replacement arthroplasty: fracture around implant, dislocation 
 Re‐operations 
 Wound healing: superficial, infection, deep sepsis 
 (c) Postoperative complications: none 
 (d) Postoperative care outcomes: none 
 (e) Anatomical restoration: none 
 (f) Final outcome measures: 
 Mortality at 4, 12, 24 months 
 Pain at 4, 12, 24 months; Activities of daily living score; Health related quality of life questionnaire; Walking ability (Charnley score); Movement of the hip (Charnley score); Failure to regain mobility 
 (g) Economic cost: none
Notes Additional information supplied by trialists
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk 'sealed envelopes technique'
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 Were the assessors of pain and function at follow‐up blinded to the treatment allocation High risk not mentioned