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

Mouzopoulos 2008.

Methods Method of randomisation: alternation
Participants Orthopaedic unit in Athens, Greece
From April 1999 to April 2002 
 129 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture. 
 Mean age: 74 years (range not stated) 
 Percentage male: 31 (28% of 109) 
 Follow‐up: mean 48 months 
 Loss to follow‐up: 2 (4%) lost but in addition, 8 excluded because of previous hip fracture and 18 patients who had revision surgery were not followed‐up for the functional assessments. 
 Inclusions: age over 70 years, good cognitive function, moderately dependent, displaced intracapsular fracture 
 Exclusions: Pagets disease, history of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis
Interventions 1. Internal fixation with a Sliding Hip Screw 
 versus:
2. Merte hemiarthroplasty versus 
 3. De Puy total hip replacement. 
 It was not stated if the prostheses were cemented in place
Outcomes Follow‐up for 48 months 
 OUTCOMES COLLECTED BY TRIAL 
 (a) Operative details: none 
 (b) Complications related to type of operation 
 Re‐operations (1 and 4 years) 
 (c) Postoperative complications: none 
 (d) Postoperative care outcomes: 
 Length of hospital stay 
 (e) Anatomical restoration: none 
 (f) Final outcome measures: 
 Mortality (1 and 4 years) 
 Barthel score (1 and 4 years) 
 Harris hip score (1 and 4 years) 
 Range of movement 
 Walking speed 
 (g) Economic cost: none
Notes Eight patients who had had a previous hip fracture and 18 patients who had a revision operation were excluded from the follow‐up assessments.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk 'these 129 participants were randomly divided, by two orthopaedic surgeons, into three groups according to the type of surgical operation there were to undergo, following this order: hemi‐arthroplasty, total arthroplasty, internal fixation, etc"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk alternation: as above
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 Were the assessors of pain and function at follow‐up blinded to the treatment allocation Low risk Assessors of function were blinded to the type of surgery