Austin Moore cervicocephalic prostheses have been a therapeutical option for femoral neck fractures in patients with a reduced general condition for many years. Since treatments other than total hip arthroplasties have also been included in National arthroplasty registers during the last decade, adequate reference data for comparative analyses have recently become available. Based on a standardised methodology, a comprehensive literature analysis of clinical literature and register reports was conducted. On the one hand, the datasets were examined with regard to validity and the occurrence of possible bias factors, on the other hand, the objective was to compile a summary of the data available. The main criterion is the indicator of Revision Rate. The definitions used with respect to revisions and the methodology of calculations are in line with the usual standards of international arthroplasty registers.Introduction
Materials and Methods
The published results from clinical follow up studies have been compared to Arthroplasty register Results: Results: 24% of all papers were published by the inventor of the implant. These publications show a 3,4 times lower revision rate compared to independent studies and a 4,6 times lower revision rate compared to Register based publications. The cumulative revision rate per 100 observed component years of register based publications is 1,36 times higher compared to independent clinical studies. The difference is statistically not significant. Pooling the published data from all follow up studies the impact of the studies published by the inventor leads to a statistically significant bias.
Arthroplasty Register data are able to detect bias factors and lead to a better quality of assessments concerning the outcome of arthroplasty.