Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
External Validity of the HOPE-Trial Hemiarthroplasty Compared with Total Hip Arthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures in Octogenarians
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: JBJS Open Access, ISSN 2472-7245, Vol. 4, no 2, p. 1-7, article id e0061Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most reliable way of evaluating the effect of new treatments by comparing them with previously accepted treatment regimens. The results obtained from an RCT are extrapolated from the study environment to the general health care system. The ability to do so is called external validity. We sought to evaluate the external validity of an RCT comparing the results of total hip arthroplasty with those of hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients ≥80 years of age.

Methods: This prospective, single-center cohort study included 183 patients ≥80 years of age who had a displaced femoral neck fracture. All patients were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for an RCT comparing total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty. The population for this study consisted of patients who gave their informed consent and were randomized into the RCT (consenting group, 120 patients) as well as those who declined to give their consent to participate (non-consenting group, 63 patients). The outcome measurements were mortality, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures. Follow-up was carried out postoperatively with use of a mailed survey that included patient-reported outcome questionnaires.

Results: We found a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference between the groups, with the non-consenting group having a higher risk of death compared with the consenting group. (hazard ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9 to 11.1). No differences were found between the groups in terms of patient-reported outcome measures or surgical complications.

Conclusions: This cohort study indicates a higher mortality rate but comparable hip function and quality of life among eligible non-consenters as compared with eligible consenters when evaluating the external validity of an RCT in patients ≥80 years of age with femoral neck fracture.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
JBJS , 2019. Vol. 4, no 2, p. 1-7, article id e0061
National Category
Orthopaedics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-161074DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00061OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-161074DiVA, id: diva2:1332076
Available from: 2019-06-27 Created: 2019-06-27 Last updated: 2019-06-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(362 kB)51 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 362 kBChecksum SHA-512
0677d76ac263b9485140fc747c61618d1462e284d864830ae0a4e09f98524db945618d623f5ecca2233313123994c1e0f5cf598efe45d6f56e98146e6379dffb
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mukka, SebastianSjöholm, PontusSayed-Noor, Arkan
By organisation
Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences
Orthopaedics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 51 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 95 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf