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

Soreide 1979.

Methods Randomisation by: date of birth.
Participants One hospital, Bergen, Norway. 
 From 1 October 1974 to 30 September 1976 
 104 patients 
 Characteristics of participants: 
 Mean age: fixation 77.9 , arthroplasty 78.3 years. 
 Male: 21 (20%) 
 Loss to follow‐up: 7 (6.7%) 
 Inclusions: acute femoral neck fracture (Garden II‐IV), aged over 67 
 Exclusions: by implication pathological fractures, metastatic carcinoma
Interventions ‐Reduction and fixation with von Bahr screws versus 
 ‐Bipolar hemiarthroplasty, Christiansen
Outcomes Follow‐up for 12 months 
 Mean: fixation 14.7 months, arthroplasty 14.5 months 
 OUTCOMES COLLECTED BY TRIAL 
 (a) Operative details: 
 Length of surgery 
 Transfusion 
 (b) Complications related to type of operation: 
 For internal fixation: mechanical failure, necrosis of femoral head 
 For replacement arthroplasty: postoperative luxation, delerin luxation 
 For both methods: re‐operation, superficial infection, haematoma 
 (c) Postoperative complications: 
 Deep vein thrombosis and Pulmonary embolism combined 
 Cardiopulmonary 
 Neurological 
 Drug exanthema 
 Urinary retention 
 (d) Postoperative care outcomes 
 Length of necessary hospital stay 
 Days to mobilisation 
 (e) Anatomical restoration: 
 Range of movement 
 (f) Final outcome measures: 
 Mortality at 1, 6, 12 months 
 Walking ability and aids used 
 Stitchfield's hip assessment (pain, movement, capacity for walking) 
 (g) Economic cost: 
 Includes initial stay and stay inclusive of re‐operations
Notes Fractures include Garden II‐IV. 
 Discrepancy in numbers originally randomised 121 or 123. 17 excluded after randomisation.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk 'randomized into two groups according to their date of birth'
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk 'randomized into two groups according to their date of birth'
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 Were the assessors of pain and function at follow‐up blinded to the treatment allocation High risk No mention of blinding of assessors of pain and function