Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial
BMJ 2007; 335 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39399.456551.25 (Published 13 December 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:1251All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Sir,
With Interest I read the important article by Frede Frihagen, Lars Nordsletten and Jan Erik Madsen. The authors choose the Harris Hip Score as their primary outcome. The including surgeon evaluated the pre-injury Harris Hip Score. This is interesting since this instrument consist of four domains: 1) pain, 2) function (including gait based on physical examination), 3) absence of deformity based on physical examination, and 4) Range of Motion (ROM) based on physical examination.
I wonder how the investigators were able to assess the pre-injury gait, deformity and ROM? Or did the investigators omit these domains in their analysis?
Furthermore, I wonder how the outcome assessors where blinded during their assessment of the Harris Hip Score. Hemiarthroplasty requires a larger incision compared to the small incision used for cannulated screw fixation; could this have influenced blinding?
Finally, the authors describe they used multiple comparisons. I wonder why they did not use statistical correction such as, the Bonferonni method(1), although this is a rather strict method. The three outcomes would set the level of significance at atleast 0.017 instead of 0.05. The sweeping results regarding re-operation rates and its effect on function would stand up to this test. Still, using statistical correction for multiple endpoints would represent more realistic findings.
Kind regards,
Rudolf W. Poolman MD PhD
Reference
(1) Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995; 310(6973):170.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Pre-injury Harris Hip Score Assessment, Blinding and Multiple Endpoints.
We certainly appreciate the interest in, and thorough read of, our
article. Some important methodological questions are raised.
Firstly,
there are two questions relating to the data collection and Harris Hip
Score: 1) We wanted to include a pre-morbid functional score in the study
to be able to ascertain well matched treatment groups, as recommended by
among others the Cochrane collaboration.(1) As none of the patients -
obviously - were available for a pre-facture interview or examination, we
had to rely on a post injury score. In our pre-fracture Harris Hip Score
we asked the patients and/or their caregivers about pain and function,
including range of motion and absence of deformity. We believe that it was
much better to have a baseline functional score based on recall than to
have nothing at all, and if the patients over- or under- estimated their
pre-fracture function, this should be equally distributed between the
groups.
2) The next comment related to the postoperative scoring of the
Harris Hip Score and raised the question of whether the size of incision
unblinded the assessors. We solved that quite simply by not letting the
outcome assessors undress the patient, as we felt that the potential
problem of reducing the quality of assessment by far was outweighed by the
benefit of protecting the blinding.
3) The third question raised concerned
the data analysis and the lack of correction for multiple comparisons. In
our discussion in the article this is mentioned. Our pre-defined main
outcome measure, the Harris Hip Score after 12 months, however, showed a
statistically and clinically significant result in favour of the treatment
with hemiarthroplasty. The other pre-specified functional tests are
probably not independent of Harris Hip Score, indeed they all pointed
towards hemiarthroplasty being the better treatment. The benefit of using
the Bonferroni correction is thus questionable because it may lead to a
type II error,(2) especially in the presence of a plausible biological
explanation: A displaced femoral neck fracture in an elderly patient is
broken beyond repair and should be replaced instead of fixed.
Best regards,
Frede Frihagen, Lars Nordsletten and Jan Erik Madsen
References
(1) Parker MJ, Gurusamy K. Internal fixation versus arthroplasty for
intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev 2006;(4):CD001708.
(2) Perneger TV. What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments BMJ
1998;316:1236-1238
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests