Cumulative incidence and treatment of non-simultaneous bilateral femoral neck fractures in a cohort of one thousand two hundred and fifty patients

Incidence and risk factors for bilateral proximal femoral fractures

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are a public health issue due to their high frequency. The frequency of a second PFF on the other side is estimated at 10%. This estimation is controversial, however, and the risk factors have not been evaluated in a large population of French patients. The objective of this retrospective case-control study was to determine: (1) the incidence of second PFFs and (2) their risk factors.

HYPOTHESIS

The incidence of second PFFs is >2% after 1 year and >5% after 3 years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a case-control study in a population of consecutive patients managed surgically for PPF at the Lyon Sud Hospital between 2013 and 2014. We analysed the following clinical factors: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), institutionalisation, the Parker score, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA), comorbidities, and the use of psychoactive drugs.

RESULTS

We included 474 PFFs (trochanter, n=240 and neck, n=234) of which 36 were bilateral. The contralateral fracture occurred within 1 year of the first fracture in 6/474 (1.3%) cases and within 3 years in all 36 cases (7.6%). The case-control study comprised 49 cases with bilateral PFF and 161 controls with no second hip fracture within 3 years. Risk factors for a second hip fracture were age older than 90 years (odds ratio [OR]=5.44; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 112-2642 (p=0.002)) and a history of heart disease (OR, 2.18; 95%CI, 1.06-4.47 [p=0.03]). A Parker score≥6 was protective (OR, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.71-0.99 [p=0.03]). Mortality after 3 years was 42% (201/474), and 13% (63/474) of patients were lost to follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Age older than 90 years, a Parker score below 6, and a history of heart disease are risk factors for a second PFF within 3 years after the first PFF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case-control study.

Posterolateral or direct lateral approach for hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fractures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The posterolateral approach (PLA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) are the most commonly used approaches for inserting a hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. A recent review concluded that the routine use of PLA should be questioned, but this conclusion itself can be questioned. The aim of this study is to provide an updated overview and critical appraisal of the available evidence, focussing on outcomes most relevant for patients.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of literature in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Library. Studies (till June 2018) to identify hip fracture clinical trials/comparative studies comparing alternative surgical approaches (PLA and DLA). We explored sources of heterogeneity and conducted pooled analyses when appropriate.

RESULTS

264 potentially eligible studies were identified of which 1 RCT, 3 prospective, 3 registry data and 5 retrospective studies were included. The RCT consisted performance and attrition bias. The mean MINORS score of the prospective/register studies was 17.3 (SD 3.5) and 13.8 (SD 1.9) of the 5 retrospective studies. The GRADE score for all the outcomes was very low. Due to the high and various types of biases across the included studies, we did not pool the data. None of studies assessed the activities of daily living functionality. 6 studies reported significantly more dislocations or reoperations due to dislocation in the PLA group, 6 other studies found no differences. DLA patients were more likely to develop abductor insufficiency leading to limping and more need for walking aids. The PLA patients tended to have better quality of life, less pain and more satisfaction compared to the DLA patients.

CONCLUSION

Based on low-quality studies, PLA may be associated with more dislocations, but patients had less walking problems and a lower tendency to abductor insufficiency compared with DLA. Further clinical trials with methodology rigor are needed to determine which approach is more effective in terms of outcomes relevant to patients.

The value of nonoperative versus operative treatment of frail institutionalized elderly patients with a proximal femoral fracture in the shade of life (FRAIL-HIP); protocol for a multicenter observational cohort study

Background

Proximal femoral fractures are strongly associated with morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Mortality is highest among frail institutionalized elderly with both physical and cognitive comorbidities who consequently have a limited life expectancy. Evidence based guidelines on whether or not to operate on these patients in the case of a proximal femoral fracture are lacking. Practice variation occurs, and it remains unknown if nonoperative treatment would result in at least the same quality of life as operative treatment. This study aims to determine the effect of nonoperative management versus operative management of proximal femoral fractures in a selected group of frail institutionalized elderly on the quality of life, level of pain, rate of complications, time to death, satisfaction of the patient (or proxy) and the caregiver with the management strategy, and health care consumption.

Methods

This is a multicenter, observational cohort study. Frail institutionalized elderly (70 years or older with a body mass index < 18.5, a Functional Ambulation Category of 2 or lower pre-trauma, or an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 4 or 5), who sustained a proximal femoral fracture are eligible to participate. Patients with a pathological or periprosthetic fractures and known metastatic oncological disease will be excluded. Treatment decision will be reached following a structured shared decision process. The primary outcome is quality of life (Euro-QoL; EQ-5D-5 L). Secondary outcome measures are quality of life measured with the QUALIDEM, pain level (PACSLAC), pain medication use, treatment satisfaction of patient (or proxy) and caregivers, quality of dying (QODD), time to death, and direct medical costs. A cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis will be done, using the EQ-5D utility score and QUALIDEM score, respectively. Non-inferiority of nonoperative treatment is assumed with a limit of 0.15 on the EQ-5D score. Data will be acquired at 7, 14, and 30 days and at 3 and 6 months after trauma.

Discussion

The results of this study will provide insight into the true value of nonoperative treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail elderly with a limited life expectancy. The results may be used for updating (inter)national treatment guidelines.

Trial registration

The study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7245; date 10-06-2018).

Comparative analysis of non-simultaneous bilateral fractures of the proximal femur

PURPOSE

We performed a monocenter cohort study to determine surgical revision and mortality after sustaining an initial and a non-simultaneous contralateral proximal femoral fracture.

METHODS

We identified all patients surgically treated for a contralateral femoral fracture between 2006 and 2015. Patient demographic characteristics and follow-up were identified by our electronic database; failed information regarding revision and mortality were obtained by telephone, as well as the evaluation of the mobility for all alive patients. The endpoint of the study was set for every patient at least 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Within a total of 2296 patients, we identified 250 patients (10.8%) treated for a contralateral fracture. The mean interval between the two occurrences was 5.2 years and the mean age at the time of contralateral fracture was 84.4 years. Almost every third fracture occurred later than 5 years after the initial fracture, and even every tenth fracture later than 10 years. More than 50% of the patients also had dementia at this time. The total surgical revision rate was 17.2% after initial, and 20.4% after contralateral fracture, but this difference was statistically not significant (p = 0.31). However, revisions for infection or hematoma were more than twice after contralateral fracture (p = 0.006). The 1-year mortality rate was 36%, and dementia (log rank p < 0.001) and male gender (log rank p < 0.001) were significant negative predictors for the survival rate. After a mean of 42 months, the follow-up of the 67 alive patients recorded a mean Parker Score of 5.2 items.

CONCLUSION

Contralateral femoral fracture was accompanied by a higher revision and mortality rate-but patients were also 5 years older. Dementia and male gender were significant negative variables for the survival time. In the future, the highest priority will be the prophylaxis of falling to avoid or at least to decline the number of these fractures in geriatric patients.

A prospective study with ten years follow-up of two-hundred patients with proximal femoral fracture

BACKGROUND

The proximal femoral fracture is one of the most common injuries in the elderly. Nevertheless, no results beyond the second year post surgery have been reported in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate any revision and mortality within 10 years follow-up as well as the walking ability of still alive patients.

METHODS

A total of 200 consecutive patients were included. A prospective database was first used to collect the demographic data. Exactly ten years after the surgery, a final evaluation was conducted by telephone for every patient. Any revision, any contralateral as well as other fractures and the date of death were recorded. For all patients who were still alive, the mobility score according to Parker was also surveyed.

RESULTS

The average age was 79.0 years (SD: 12.5); women were affected at higher numbers (73.5%). The total surgical revision rate was 17.5% (35/200), due in particular to hematoma (9×) or infection (7×). A surgical revision later than two years was only needed in three patients (1.5%). The risk of another fracture caused by a fall was 19% (38/200), most often a contralateral femoral fracture (22/200; 11%) that happened on average 51.9 months (1-97) after the initial surgery. The risk of a contralateral femoral fracture was 15.4% (22/143) in patients who survived the first year post surgery. The postoperative mortality was 1, 2, 5 and 10 years or 23.5%, 32.5%, 55% as well as 81.5%, respectively. An average Parker's mobility score of 6.3 points (0-9) was determined for the 37 patients (18.5%) who were still alive at the time of the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The long-term study showed that revision surgery was only required in 3/200 patients (1.5%) beyond the second year of that surgery. On the other hand, more than half of all patients had already passed away five years after the initial surgery. The exact incidence of a contralateral femoral fracture was 11.9%, climbing to 15.4% if the patient survived at least one year. Nearly every fifth patient experienced another fall resulting in a severe fracture requiring treatment during the long-term course.

Association Between Financial Incentives for Regional Care Coordination and Health Care Resource Utilization Among Older Patients after Femoral Neck Fracture Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Claims Database

The incidence rates of hip fracture have been increasing in Japan. Length of stay among hip fracture patients in Japan is much longer than other developed countries, and the Japanese government introduced financial incentives for regionally coordinated femoral neck fracture care to reduce health care resource utilization. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the financial incentives reduce health care resource utilization among patients 75 years or older with femoral neck fracture in Japan. Claims data from the Fukuoka Prefecture Regional Association for Late-Stage Healthcare for Older People were analyzed for the period from April 2010 to March 2016. The authors identified 4641 eligible subjects after femoral neck fracture surgery, and categorized them into groups based on care pathways: coordinated care, integrated care, and other. Length of stay by care phase and total charges were used as measures of health care resource utilization. The models showed that coordinated and integrated care were significantly associated with shorter length of stay during perioperative care: coordinated care, multiplicative effect, 0.90 (P < 0.001); integrated care, 0.77 (P < 0.001). However, only integrated care was associated with shorter rehabilitation and overall length of stay: 0.66 (P < 0.001) in rehabilitation; 0.70 (P < 0.001) in overall duration. Integrated care also was associated with lower total charges: 0.70 (P < 0.001). Current financial incentives for regionally coordinated femoral neck fracture care do not affect health care resource utilization. Further health care reforms should be implemented to promote effective regional care coordination in Japan.

Antiresorptive treatment, when initiated after a first hip fracture, may not protect of a second contralateral episode in elderly population: A study with 685 patients

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis predisposes for a higher risk of hip fracture and its treatment is frequently underprescribed. Our purpose was to assess the relation between having a second hip fracture and receiving osteoporosis treatment. Also to assess the relation between this second fracture and using central nervous system drugs or being institutionalised.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed all the patients that were admitted to our hospital with an osteoporotic proximal femoral fracture between September 2009 and February 2011. We identified 685 patients, 74 of which presented a contralateral fracture. We evaluated if they were receiving osteoporosis treatment or taking any medication that could affect the central nervous system and if they were institutionalised.

RESULTS

A 10.8% of patients had a second fracture and the mean time between the two of them was 20 months (1-122). There was a clear female predominance (76.35%). The mean age at occurrence of the primary fracture was 83.02 years and 85 for the second. A 90.8% did not follow any type of osteoporosis medication before the first fracture. A 50.9% did not receive central nervous system drugs and 79.1% lived at home at the time of the first fracture. 12.8% of the patients that did not follow the osteoporosis treatment, had a contralateral fracture, 3% more than those that did follow some kind of treatment, but this difference was not significant (p=0.2).

DISCUSSION

We identified a similar number of patients undergoing osteoporotic treatment as registered in literature. There was no significant difference between suffering a second hip fracture and following osteoporosis treatment, using psychotropic drugs or being institutionalised.

Hip fracture and the influence of dementia on health outcomes and access to hospital-based rehabilitation for older individuals

BACKGROUND

For older individuals who sustain a hip fracture, the presence of dementia can influence their access to hospital-based rehabilitation.

PURPOSE

This study compares the characteristics and health outcomes of individuals with and without dementia following a hip fracture; and access to, and outcomes following, hospital-based rehabilitation in a population-based cohort.

METHOD

An examination of hip fractures involving individuals aged 65 years and older with and without dementia using linked hospitalisation, rehabilitation and mortality records during 2009-2013.

RESULTS

There were 8785 individuals with and 23 520 individuals without dementia who sustained a hip fracture. Individuals with dementia had a higher age-adjusted 30-d mortality rate compared to individuals without dementia (11.7% versus 5.7%), a lower proportion of age-adjusted 28-d re-admission (17.3% versus 24.4%) and a longer age-adjusted mean length of stay (22.2 versus 21.9 d). Compared to individuals without dementia, individuals with dementia had 4.3 times (95% CI: 3.90-4.78) lower odds of receiving hospital-based rehabilitation. However, when they did receive rehabilitation they achieved significant motor functional gain at discharge compared to admission using the Functional Independence Measure, but to a lesser extent than individuals without dementia.

CONCLUSION

Within a population-based cohort, older individuals with dementia can benefit from access to, and participation in, rehabilitation activities following a hip fracture. This will ensure that they have the best chance of returning to their pre-fracture physical function and mobility. Implications for Rehabilitation Older individuals with dementia can benefit from rehabilitation activities following a hip fracture. Early mobilisation of individuals post-hip fracture surgery, where possible, is advised. Further work is needed on how best to work with individuals with dementia after a hip fracture in residential aged care to maximise any potential functional gains.