Prommik P, Tootsi K, Saluse T, Märtson A, Kolk H. Nonoperative hip fracture management practices and patient survival compared to surgical care: an analysis of Estonian population-wide data.
Arch Osteoporos 2021;
16:101. [PMID:
34173061 DOI:
10.1007/s11657-021-00973-y]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2020] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED
A notable proportion of hip fracture patients receive nonoperative management, but such practice is seldom analysed. Although highly variable reasons underpin hip fracture nonoperative management, none of these practices conclusively outweigh the superiority of operative management. Nonoperative management should be only considered when surgery is not an option.
PURPOSE
Reasons underpinning hip fracture (HF) nonoperative management (NOM) are seldom analysed. This study aims to identify the reasons behind NOM and assess the accuracy of these decisions using these patients' survival compared with those treated with operative management (OM).
METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study based on population-wide administrative health data, including patients aged ≥ 50 with an index HF diagnosis between January 2009 and September 2017. NOM patients were subgrouped according to their expected prognoses, and their survival up to 36 months was compared with those treated surgically.
RESULTS
From a total of 11,210 included patients, 6.8% (766) received NOM. Varying reasons lead to NOM, dividing them further into five distinct subgroups: (I) 46% NOM decision due to poor expected prognosis with OM; (II) 29% NOM decision due to poor expected prognosis for mixed reasons; (III) 15% NOM decision due to good expected prognosis with NOM; (IV) 8.0% NOM decision due to patient's refusal of OM; and (V) 1.3% NOM decision due to occult HF. Only poor prognosis and patients who refused OM (I, II, IV) had worse survival than OM patients. However, a relatively high proportion of the poor prognosis patients survived 1 year (29%).
CONCLUSION
Although there was high variability in reasons underpinning HF NOM, none of these practices conclusively outweigh OM's superiority. NOM should be considered with utmost care and only for patients for whom OM is out of the question - well-defined medical unfitness or carefully considered refusal by understanding the increased mortality risk.
Collapse