Management of hip fractures in the elderly

A fracture of the proximal femur (or hip fracture) is a devastating injury to an elderly patient. Nearly all patients require surgery as part of their treatment but their care necessitates complex multidisciplinary involvement. In the last ten years there have been a number of initiatives to help improve care for this challenging patient group, as well as establishment of The National Hip Fracture Database, to allow us to audit the care provided. With this focus, we have seen both mortality and length of stay decrease. The aim of this article is to summarize the current recommendations for patients who suffer a hip fracture.     

Patients with hip fracture admitted to critical care: Epidemiology,interventions and outcome

Introduction

Although there is much current debate about the use of critical care to enhance peri-operative care of patients with hip fracture there are limited supporting data. We investigated the epidemiology, critical care interventions and outcomes of patients with hip fracture admitted to a large UK critical care unit.

Patients and methods

We reviewed all patients with hip fracture (excluding those with multiple trauma, and those with femoral shaft or peri-prosthetic fracture) who were admitted to our critical care unit during a four year period. We recorded patient characteristics, reason for admission to critical care, interventions and organ support performed, and patient outcome.

Results

We identified 99 patients with a mean age of 81 years; this represented 1% of patients admitted to critical care, and 2.4% of patients with hip fracture admitted to hospital during the study period. Fifty-two patients required no organ support; 19 received only respiratory support, 13 only cardiovascular support, 12 received both respiratory and cardiovascular support, and 3 received respiratory, cardiovascular and renal support. Outcome worsened as the level of organ support increased (p = 0.01). Fifteen patients died in critical care, acute hospital mortality was 33% and 1-year mortality was 54%. No patient for whom admission was planned before surgery died in critical care and the 30-day mortality for this group was 13%. Outcome was related to the time between surgery and critical care admission: patients admitted before surgery or longer than 2 days after surgery had worse outcomes (p = 0.001). The reason for admission to critical care also influenced outcome: patients with sepsis had poor outcome with one-third dying in critical care and a further one-third not surviving to hospital discharge.

Conclusions

The major determinants of outcome in this population were reason for admission, and timing of admission to critical care. One year survival was better than that for unselected patients aged >80 years admitted to critical care. Admission to critical care and use of enhanced peri-operative care for selected hip fracture patients is entirely appropriate and beneficial.     

Orthogeriatric co-management – managing frailty as well as fragility

A high proportion of patients with fragility fracture, mainly hip fracture, have a variable degree of comorbidity and show some degree of dependence in basic or more complex activities of daily living. Evaluating these patents following the geriatric concept of frailty, about one third of hip fracture patients may be categorised as frail with high risk of poor outcomes and prolonged length of stay, one third as not frail, and about one third with an intermediate condition. Due to the high vulnerability, combined with the hip fracture event and surgical repair procedures, a multidisciplinary approach that includes geriatric competencies becomes essential to improve short and long-term outcomes after hip fracture. A key element of an effective process of care is a true co-managed approach that applies quality standards and provides a fast-track pathway of care, minimises the time the patient spends in bed, and reduces postoperative complications by means of standardised procedures.The occurrence of a fragility fracture is the strongest risk factor for a subsequent fracture. Moreover, frail subjects have a further risk of fracture due to high risk of falls − related to loss of muscle mass, multiple illnesses, impaired balance and weakness. Thus, effective secondary prevention strategies are essential to reduce morbidity and mortality after hip fracture, and they are currently a standard task of orthogeriatric care. Fracture liaison services (FLS) are probably the most efficient way of addressing secondary prevention including the assessment of both bone health and falls risk. Therefore, the optimal management of frail patients with fragility fracture includes both orthogeriatric care and FLS, which are complementary to each other.Orthogeriatric collaboration is also powerful in influencing healthcare policy. British experience as well as that in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, have shown that when two widely disparate specialisms say the same thing, they may achieve a fundamental shift in attitudes and behaviour of both managers and clinicians. Furthermore, a continuous real-time audit, at national level, is a powerful driver for change and better standards of care.     

It was not a hip fracture – you were lucky this time – or perhaps not! A prospective study of clinical outcomes in patients with low-energy pelvic fractures and hip contusions

IntroductionPrehospital and hospital emergency care guidelines have been developed for patients with suspected hip fracture. Initial radiography can identify a number of patients with other injuries, generally pelvic fractures and hip contusions. Little is known about the prognosis for these patients.The aim of this study is twofold: i) to investigate the injury pattern of patients assessed in prehospital emergency care as suffering from a suspected hip fracture and ii) to compare clinical outcomes between patients with verified hip fracture (HF) and those with other hip injuries (OHI).MethodThe study design was prospective. Older patients with suspected HF after low-energy trauma were identified in prehospital emergency care. Injury type was determined by radiological imaging. Comparisons of length of stay, adverse events, repeated prehospital emergency care and mortality were made between verified HF and OHI cases.Results449 patients were included, 400 in the HF and 149 in the OHI group (86 hip contusions, 46 pelvic fractures and 17 other injuries/diseases). The HF group had a significantly longer hospital stay (9.5 days vs. 6.3 for the OHI group; p < 0.001) and more adverse events while in hospital (34% vs. 19%; p < 0.001). We found no evidence that the groups differed with regard to other outcomes: mortality during hospital stay (4% vs. 2%, p = 0.42), at 4 (16% vs. 13%; p = 0.35) and 12 months (21 vs. 23%; p = 0.64), the proportion that experienced an adverse event (24% vs. 22%; p = 0.65) and the proportion that required another ambulance transport within 6 months after discharge (40% vs. 34%; p = 0.16). The results were not strongly affected by adjustments for possible confounders.ConclusionOlder patients who suffer a low-energy pelvic fracture or a hip contusion are common in prehospital and hospital emergency care. These patients need attention as they have poor outcomes in terms of adverse events, mortality and recurrent need for ambulance transport after discharge from hospital. While individualized multidisciplinary care is recommended for hip fracture patients, it might also be suitable for other geriatric hip injuries.     

Fragility fracture-related direct medical costs in the first year following a nonvertebral fracture in a managed care setting

The objective of this study was to estimate the fracture-related direct medical costs during the first year following a fragility nonvertebral fracture in a managed care setting. This was a retrospective cohort study conducted among patients (aged 45+ years) with a primary diagnosis for a fragility nonvertebral fracture between July 1, 2000, and December 31, 2000, using MarketScan, an integrated administrative, medical, and pharmacy claims database. All patients had 6 months of observation prior to their fracture and 12 months following a nonvertebral fracture. Fracture-related direct medical costs were evaluated in the 12-month period following fracture diagnosis using 2003 Medicare fee schedule payments. The costs per fracture per year (PFPY) for specific nonvertebral fracture sites were determined, as well as costs by type of care (i.e., outpatient, inpatient, and other). A total of 4,477 women and men fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The sample was comprised of 73% women and the mean age was 70 years. The most prevalent nonvertebral fracture sites were wrist/forearm (37%), hip (25%), and humerus (15%). Mean total costs per patient per year were highest for fractures of the hip ($26,856), femur ($14,805), tibia ($10,224), and pelvis ($10,198). On average, 84% of the annual fracture-related costs were inpatient; 3% were outpatient, and 13% were long-term care and other costs. In a patient population aged 45+ years, the first month following a nonvertebral fracture has a major impact on medical care costs. The most costly nonvertebral fracture sites were hip, femur, and tibia fractures.     

Total hip replacement for hip fracture: Surgical techniques and concepts

When treating a hip fracture with a total hip replacement (THR) the surgical technique may differ in a number of aspects in comparison to elective arthroplasty. The hip fracture patient is more likely to have poor bone stock secondary to osteoporosis, be older, have a greater number of co-morbidities, and have had limited peri-operative work-up. These factors lead to a higher risk of complications, morbidity and perioperative mortality.Consideration should be made to performing the THR in a laminar flow theatre, by a surgeon experienced in total hip arthroplasty, using an anterolateral approach, cementing the implant in place, using a large head size and with repair of the joint capsule. Combined Ortho-geriatric care is recommended with similar post-operative rehabilitation to elective THR patients but with less expectation of short length of stay and consideration for fracture prevention measures.     

Magnetic resonance imaging for verifying hip fracture diagnosis why,when and how?

IntroductionHip fractures are commonly diagnosed by plain radiography. When a patient presents with negative radiographs and high clinical suspicion of fracture, guidelines recommend proceeding with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose the patient. The aim of this study was to assess the use of MRI in diagnosing hip fractures following trauma to the hip and describe clinical outcome after MRI-diagnosed hip fractures. The perspective was to develop new recommendations for MRI use.Materials and methods616 patients at a university hospital fulfilled the inclusion criteria of having an MRI scan of the hip following trauma between the years of 2005 and 2014. Data was collected from the patients’ medical records.ResultsThe annual number of MRIs increased over the ten-year period. Out of 616 MRI scans 228 (37%) showed fracture of the hip with a dominance of trochanteric fractures, 185 (30%) revealed pelvic fracture and 183 (29%) were negative. No patient with acute pelvic fracture had associated fracture of the hip. The main reason to proceed with MRI was a strong clinical suspicion of fracture in patients with negative initial radiographs. Amongst the 228 patients with fracture, 187 (82%) were treated operatively. Of patients with hip fracture, 90 (39%) patients suffered a general complication and 11 (5%) had hip complications. The complication rate of patients with fracture on MRI was compared to that of a cohort of general hip fracture patients at our hospital. No significant difference in twelve months’ survival or general complications could be found, but the MRI group had a significantly lower hip complication rate.ConclusionThe diagnosis set by MRI, with high share of pelvic fractures or no fracture, reflects the difficulty in differential diagnosing this group of patients. The rate of occult hip fractures was low and patients with pelvic fractures already known from X-ray did not have additional hip fractures. We found an increase in the annual number of MRIs during the 10–year-period. MRI-diagnosed hip fracture patients do not suffer more complications than the regular hip fracture patient.     

Hip fractures and best practice tariffs

Hip fractures or proximal femur fractures describe fractures of the proximal femur from the femoral head to 5 cm below the lower border of the lesser trochanter. Most hip fractures occur in elderly patients whose bones have become weakened by osteopenia or osteoporosis, i.e. a fragility fracture. The prevalence of hip fractures is increasing steadily due to the ageing population. Due to the patient demographic (elderly, likely with multiple comorbidities) numerous guidelines are put in place and continually revised to facilitate best patient outcomes. It is now widely accepted that effective management of hip fractures requires collaborative care between orthopaedic surgeons and orthogeriatricians as part of a Hip Fracture Programme, with a focus on prompt surgery, re-establishing the patient's independence/pre-fracture mobility, and preventing further fractures by assessing falls risk and bone health. The NHS financially incentivizes Healthcare Trusts in the UK to achieve a set of Best Practice Tariffs (BPTs), which were introduced by the British Geriatric Society and the British Orthopaedic Society. The mainstay treatment for hip fractures is surgery, and the choice of surgery depends on the radiological classification of the hip fracture into an intracapsular vs extracapsular fracture and whether the fracture is displaced or non-displaced. This is due to the high risk of avascular necrosis of the femoral head with displaced intracapsular fractures. Other important considerations are the age of the patient, pre-fracture functionality, and comorbidities. This paper will describe hip fractures (particularly fragility hip fractures) including their classification, management and how gold standard care is incentivized by the best practice tariffs.     

Is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) necessary to exclude occult hip fracture?

The possibility of occult hip fracture in older patients after a fall is a common problem in emergency and orthopaedic departments. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning is the best investigation, but is expensive and may be difficult to obtain. The value of various clinical signs to determine which patients are at risk of occult hip fracture has not been reported. We reviewed all patients who had MRI scan for suspected hip fractures but had normal initial X-rays over a 6-year period. We identified 76 patients. Twelve patients were excluded. Two patients had MRI scan for suspected stress fracture and two patients had metastatic fractures. Eight patients had inadequate or untraceable clinical notes. Each patient's personal details, mobility, independence and detail clinical details were recorded. Following case review of 64 patients we excluded 5 patients with associated osteoarthritis of the hip joint, 1 patient with fibromyalgia and 1 patient with pre-existing multiple myeloma. Thirty-five patients had occult proximal femoral fractures. Of them four patients had isolated pubic ramus fractures and five patients had isolated greater trochanter fractures. Twenty-two patients had no fracture. The value of the individual tests was evaluated using Fisher exact and chi square analysis; with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (10 tests) p<0.005 was deemed significant. Pain on axial loading of the limb and pre-fracture restricted patient mobility were both associated with the presence of a fracture (p<0.005). Both factors had identical positive predictive value=0.76, a negative predictive value=0.69 and post-test probability of disease given a negative test=0.30. Predictive values remained the same when both factors were considered together. Patients who were independently mobile before the fall and who do not have pain on axial compression of the limb are less likely to have a fracture, but these signs alone or in combination do not exclude a fracture. The clinical signs investigated cannot distinguish between patients with and without a hip fracture, and MRI scanning is necessary to establish whether some patients have an occult fracture.     

Hip fractures – Treatment and functional outcome. The development over 25 years

BackgroundNearly 18,000 individuals suffer from hip fracture in Sweden each year. The choice in operation method for femoral neck fractures has changed over the years as well as the overall management. Functional outcome after hip fracture is affected by several factors and the overall functional level for old people in Sweden has improved over the last decades.ObjectiveTo describe and analyse the functional outcome and choice of operation method for hip fracture patients between 1988 and 2012.Patients and methodsAll patients with cervical or trochanteric hip fracture treated at Lund University Hospital from 1988 until 2012 were collected from the National Quality Register for hip fracture patients, RIKSHÖFT. Patients younger than 50 years and those with pathological fractures were excluded. Data regarding patient characteristics, fracture type, operation method and housing, walking ability and use of walk aids prefracture and at 4-months follow-up was retrieved and analysed.ResultsFor this study 8723 patients were included with a mean age of 81.6 (men 79.3, women 82.5).The mean age significantly increased over the period studied. Sliding hip screw dominates as method of choice for the trochanteric fractures. For the cervical fractures there is a clear shift from osteosynthesis to arthroplasty. There is a significant decrease in functional outcome at follow-up compared to prefracture. No significant trend change can be seen over 25 years. Functional outcome are worse for the patients with trochanteric fracture.ConclusionAlthough there have been changes in operation methods for hip fractures and the management has developed, our study does not show any effect on functional outcome over a 25-year period. The medical condition of these patients with increasing age seems to counteract efforts to improve the care.     

Hip fracture audit: Creating a ‘critical mass of expertise and enthusiasm for hip fracture care’?

The care of frail older people admitted with hip fracture has improved greatly over the last half-century, largely as a result of combined medical care and surgical care and the rise – over the last four decades – of large-scale hip fracture audit.A series of European initiatives evolved. The first national hip fracture audit was the Swedish Rikshöft in the late 1980s, and the largest so far is the UK National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD), launched in 2007. An external evaluation of the NHFD demonstrated statistically significant increases in survival at up to 1 year associated with improved early care: with rising geriatrician involvement and falling delays to surgery, and from which lessons have been learned.Comparable national audits have emerged since in northern Europe and in Australia and New Zealand, and most recently in Spain and Japan. Like the NHFD, these use the synergy of agreed clinical standards and regular – ideally continuous – audit feedback that can prompt and monitor clinical and service developments, often demonstrating both rising quality and improved cost effectiveness.In addition, important benchmarking studies of hip fracture care have been reported from India and China, both of which face huge challenges in providing care of fragility fractures in populations characterised by first-generation mass ageing. The ‘halo effect’ of the impact of growing expertise in hip fracture care on the care of other fragility fractures is noteworthy and now relevant globally.Although many national audits have now published encouraging reports of progress, the details of context and process determinants of the initiation and development of effective hip fracture audit have received relatively little attention.To address this, an extended discussion section – based on the author’s experience of participation in several substantial audits, variously supporting and observing many others, and from his numerous discussions with audit colleagues over the years – may be of value in offering practical advice on some obvious and less obvious practical issues that arise in the setting up of large-scale hip fracture audits in a variety of healthcare contexts.     

Constructing an episode of care from acute hospitalization records for studying effects of timing of hip fracture surgery

Episodes of care defined by the event of hip fracture surgery are widely used for the assessment of surgical wait times and outcomes. However, this approach does not consider nonoperative deaths, implying that survival time begins at the time of procedure. This approach makes treatment effect implicitly conditional on surviving to treatment. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel conceptual framework for constructing an episode of hip fracture care to fully evaluate the incidence of adverse events related to time after admission for hip fracture. This admission‐based approach enables the assessment of the full harm of delay by including deaths while waiting for surgery, not just deaths after surgery. Some patients wait until their conditions are optimized for surgery, whereas others have to wait until surgical service becomes available. We provide definitions, linkage rules, and algorithms to capture all hip fracture patients and events other than surgery. Finally, we discuss data elements for stratifying patients according to administrative factors for delay to allow researchers and policymakers to determine who will benefit most from expedited access to surgery. © 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:197–204, 2016.     

Consequences of hip fracture on activities of daily life and residential needs

The aim of this study was to describe the consequences of hip fracture with respect to changes in residential needs and the ability to perform activities of daily life. Patients 50 years and older admitted to the two largest hospitals of Oslo with a hip fracture during the period May 1996 through April 1997 were identified. In November 1997 a questionnaire on residential needs, activities of daily life, hip pain and health status was sent to the patients still alive (n=767). After reminders, the questionnaires of 593 patients (77%) were included. Logistic regression analysis was applied to assess items associated with functional limitation and need for residential care. The proportion of patients living in nursing homes increased from 15% before to 30% after the hip fracture, and men were twice as likely to move into a nursing home than women. Of the patients living in their own homes before the hip fracture, 6% of those <75 years compared with 33% of those >85 years had to move to nursing home after hip fracture. The proportion of patients walking without any aid decreased from 76 to 36%, and 43% of the patients lost their pre-fracture ability to move outside on their own. More than a fourth of the patients (28%) lost their ability to cook their own dinner after sustaining hip fracture. The probability of these events increased with increasing age. The probability of reporting inferior health status and for having hip pain that affected sleep after the fracture was unrelated to age. Many patients sustaining a hip fracture, and in particular the oldest patients, have reduced ability to perform activities of daily life.     

骨盆骨折患者臀背部皮肤护理的单人操作法

目的探讨基于力学原理的单人操作法在骨盆骨折患者臀背部皮肤清洁护理中的效果和实用性。方法采用自身对照法,对18例骨盆骨折患者行背部皮肤清洁护理。对照组采用传统护理方法,3人协同操作;观察组采用单人操作法,即指导患者采用4点支撑法和6点支撑法,护士辅助其分别抬高背部、臀部后进行皮肤护理。结果臀背部护理时,对照组疼痛评分显著高于观察组(P<0.01),患者均自愿选择单人操作法进行后续皮肤护理。结论实施单人操作法为骨盆骨折患者行臀背部皮肤清洁护理,不但减少护理人员的劳动强度及人力,而且使患者安全性、舒适度增加。     

Economic Implications of Hip Fracture: Health Service Use, Institutional Care and Cost in Canada

As the burden of illness associated with hip fracture extends beyond the initial hospitalization, a longitudinal 1 year cohort study was used to analyze levels of health service use, institutional care and their associated costs, and to examine patient and residency factors contributing to overall 1 year cost. Patients in the study were aged 50 year and over, and had been admitted to an acute care facility for hip fracture in the Hamilton–Wentworth region of Canada from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996. Health care resources assessed included initial hospitalization, rehospitalization, rehabilitation, chronic care, home care, long-term care (LTC) and informal care. Regression analysis was used to determine the effects of age, gender, residence, survival and days of follow-up on 1 year cost. The mean 1 year cost of hip fracture for the 504 study patients was 26.527 Canadian dollars (95% Cl: $24.564–$28.490). One year costs were significantly different for patients who returned to the community ($21.385), versus those who were transferred to ($44.156), or readmitted to LTC facilities ($33.729) (p<0.001). Initial hospitalization represented 58% of 1 year cost for community-dwelling patients, compared with 27% for LTC residents. Only 59.4% of community-dwelling patients resided in the community 1 year following hip fracture, and 5.6% of patients who survived their first fracture experienced a subsequent hip fracture. Linear regression indicated place of residence, age and survival were all important contributors to 1 year cost (p<0.001). While the average 1 year cost of care was $26.527, the overall cost varied depending on a patient”s place of residence, age, and survival to 1 year. Annual economic implications of hip fracture in Canada are $650 million and are expected to rise to $2.4 billion by 2041. Received: 4 May 2000 / Accepted: 27 October 2000     

The Cost of Treating Osteoporotic Fractures in the United Kingdom Female Population

Osteoporotic fractures represent a significant burden to society. The costs of osteoporotic fractures to the UK health care system have not previously been accurately described. In this paper, we quantify the health care and social care costs of fractures occurring in women aged 50 years and over in the UK. We used a variety of data sources. For acute hospital hip fracture costs existing published estimates were used whilst for social care costs a survey of resource use among fracture patients before and after hip fracture was utilized. We undertook a case–control study using the General Practice Research Database to estimate primary care costs. From these data we estimated that the cost of a hip fracture is about ￡12000, with non-acute hospital costs representing the larger proportion. The other fractures were less expensive, at ￡468, ￡479 and ￡1338 for wrist, vertebral and other fractures, respectively. For all fractures the annual cost to the UK is ￡727 million. Assuming each male hip fracture costs the same as a female fracture, including these would increase the total costs to ￡942 million. Received: 10 November 1997 / Revised: 23 February 1998     

Short time-frame from first to second hip fracture in the Funen County Hip Fracture Study

Introduction Hip fracture patients represent a frail group of elderly with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence and distribution of a second hip fracture in the time interval between the first and the second hip fracture.Methods All incident hip fractures in residents of Funen County, Denmark, from 1994 through 2004 were recorded. Verified fractures were sequenced within each patient using the unique Danish identification numbers.Results In total, 9990 incident hip fractures occurred: 9122 first hip fractures and 868 (8.7%) second fractures. Within the first year after the first hip fracture, the incidence rate of the second fracture in men decreased from 73 per 1000 person-years (py) during the first 3 months to 8 per 1000 py at 12 months; in women, it decreased from 116 per 1000 py during the first 3 months to 15 per 1000 py at 12 months. Of all the second fractures, 50% occurred within 12 months in men and within 19 months in women.Conclusions Few hip fracture patients experience a second hip fracture and when they do, it is within a short time-frame from the first. The risk of sustaining a second hip fracture is high during the first 12 months following the first hip fracture, decreasing to a level equal to or below the incidence of the first hip fracture after this 12-month period. Preventive strategies at the time of the first hip fracture should therefore aim at immediate effects, as interventions with effects after 12 months (men) and 19 months (women) bypass at least 50% of the fractures.The study is part of a PhD study for the first author. All authors have participated in the conceptual design of the study and finalisation of the current publication based on a first draft written by the first author. Analysis of data and data management were by first and second author.     

Mortality following combined fractures of the hip and proximal humerus

BACKGROUND Hip fractures and proximal humerus fractures are known to be associated with increased mortality, but the impact on mortality of combining these two common injuries is not well known.AIM To compare mortality, inpatient stay and discharge destination for patients with combined hip and proximal humerus fractures with those sustaining isolated hip fractures.METHODS Using the United Kingdom national hip fracture database, we identified all hip fracture patients over the age of 60 admitted to a single trauma unit from 2010-2016. Patients sustaining a proximal humerus fracture in addition to their hip fracture were identified using hospital coding data. We calculated the 30-d and one-year mortality for both the hip fracture cohort and the combined hip and proximal humerus fracture cohort. Other variables recorded included age, gender and whether the proximal humerus was treated with or without an operation.RESULTS We identified 4131 patients with hip fractures within the study period and out of those 40 had sustained both a hip and a proximal humerus fracture. Mean age in the hip fracture cohort was 80.9 years and in the combined fracture group 80.3 years. Out of the 40 patients in the combined group four were treated operatively. The 30-d mortality for our hip fracture cohort was 7.2% compared to the mortality of our combined cohort of 12.5%(P = 0.163). The one-year mortality for our hip fracture cohort was 26.4% compared to 40% for the combined fracture cohort(P = 0.038). We also found patients with combined injuries were less likely to return to their own home.CONCLUSION The 30-d and one-year mortality is higher for those patients who have sustained a combined hip and proximal humerus fracture when compared to those with a hip fracture alone.     

Subchondral stress fracture of femoral head in a healthy adult

Subchondral fracture of the femoral head is an uncommon entity and usually occurs as an insufficiency fracture associated with poor bone quality or as a fatigue fracture in young military recruits. This condition should be considered in the differential diagnosis of acute hip pain in young patients along with transient osteoporosis and avascular necrosis of the hip. We report a case of acute onset hip pain in an asymptomatic healthy adult in which the diagnosis was made by magnetic resonance imaging and the patient responded well to conservative treatment.     

The management of osteoporosis following hip fracture: Have we improved our care?

To determine if physicians have improved the recognition and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with an acute hip fracture, we performed a retrospective analysis of discharge data from 1995 and 2000 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a large tertiary care, academic institution. We examined patients admitted with an acute hip fracture in 1995 and 2000 and age- and sex-matched patients admitted with community acquired pneumonia in 2000. Outcomes included age, gender, race, discharge diagnoses (from ICD-9 codes) and discharge medications (from discharge summaries) in all patients. There were 136 acute hip fracture patients (mean age 73±18 years) in 1995, 117 acute hip fracture patients (mean age 76±16 years) in 2000 and 116 patients with community-acquired pneumonia (mean age 78±7 years). Patients admitted in 2000 with an acute hip fracture were more likely to be diagnosed with osteoporosis (18% vs. 4%, P<0.02), more likely to be discharged on calcium (17% vs. 7%, P<0.02) and more likely to be discharged on antiresorptive therapy (15% vs. 2%, P<0.001) than those admitted in 1995. Moreover, patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia were just as likely to receive calcium, vitamin D or antiresorptive agents at the time of discharge as those with an acute hip fracture in 2000. Patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis in 2000 were older and more likely to receive antiresorptive agents than those without a diagnosis (29% vs. 11%, P<0.05). None of the patients received a bone mineral density examination while in the hospital. Although there was an improvement in the management of osteoporosis after an acute hip fracture from 1995 to 2000, there was no difference in management of patients with hip fracture versus pneumonia in the year 2000. However, patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis in 2000 were more likely to be discharged on appropriate therapeutic options. We conclude that although we have improved our care of osteoporosis for elderly in general from 1995 to 2000, patients with an acute hip fracture are not receiving any additional treatment unless they have a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to determine which factors are needed to target patients for appropriate diagnosis and treatment.