MetadataShow full item record
AbstractAims: This purpose of this meta analysis was to investigate and quantify the relative risk of hip fracture in patients who have sustained a wrist fracture. Method: Studies were identified by searching Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL database and CINAHL from their inception to August 2015. Studies reporting confirmed hip fracture following wrist fracture were included. Data extraction was carried out using a modified Cochrane data collection form by two reviewers independently. Quality assessment was carried out using a modified Coleman score and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort studies. An assessment of bias was performed for each study using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A pooled relative risk(RR) was estimated with 95% CI from the RR/HRs and CIs reported in the studies. Results: 12 studies were included in the final meta-analysis (4 male, 8 female only). Relative risk of hip fracture following wrist fracture for women was 1.43 (CI 1.27 to 1.60). In men it was not significantly increased (RR 2.11, 95% CI: 0.93-4.85). Heterogeneity was low (I squared 0%) for both groups so a fixed effects model was used. Conclusion: Risk of a subsequent hip fracture is increased for women who suffer a wrist fracture (RR 1.43). Resources and preventative measures should be targeted towards these high risk patients to prevent the catastrophic event of a hip fracture. This meta analysis confirms and quantifies the increased relative risk of hip fracture after wrist fracture in women.
CitationJohnson, Nick A et al. Risk of hip fracture following a wrist fracture-A meta-analysis. Injury vol. 48,2 (2017): 399-405. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.11.002
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Mortality following distal femur fractures versus proximal femur fractures in elderly population: The impact of best practice tariff.Mubark, Islam; Abouelela, Amr; Al Ghunimat, Abdallah; Sarhan, Islam; Ashwood, Neil (2020-09)Background and objectives: The mortality after hip, proximal femur, fractures in elderly patients has steadily declined in the last decade in the United Kingdom as a result of implementing of multiple protocols focusing on prompt multidisciplinary pre- and post-operative optimization and reducing time to surgery. The pinnacle of these protocols is the development of the best practice tariff as an incentive program for hospitals that meet set criteria by the National Health Service (NHS) England in managing these injuries. Until the time of writing this paper, there was no parallel program for the management of fractures involving distal femur in the elderly. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of distal femur fractures in elderly patients against proximal femur fractures regarding post-injury mortality, the prevalence of surgical treatment and time delay till surgery. Methods: A retrospective study of all patients above the age of 60 admitted to Queens Hospital Burton between 2010 and 2014 with fractures involving distal end of the femur. Patient data were assessed for demographic criteria, co-morbidities as per Charleston Comorbidities Index, type of management, time-lapse before surgery and 30-day, six-month and one-year mortality. Results were compared to an age-matched control group of patients with proximal femur fractures randomly selected during the same time window. Results: The main demographic criteria such as age, gender, and Charleston Comorbidities Index were similar in both groups. There were more patients treated non-operatively in the distal femur group than in the proximal femur group (15% vs 4%). Time to surgery was statistically significantly longer in distal femur group compared to the proximal femur (49.130 hours vs 34.075 hours, P = 0.041). The mortality in distal femur group was higher at all times (9.68% at 30 days, 20.32% at six months and 34.41% at one year) when compared to that in the proximal femur group (6.99% at 30 days, 14.52% at six months, 21.51% at one year). Conclusion: The distal femoral fractures showed higher mortality at 30 days, six months and one year compared to the proximal femur group. This could be partly influenced by the implementation of best practice tariff in the proximal femur fracture group reflected in less time to surgery, pre- and post-operative multidisciplinary approach and more frequent operative management.
Predicting fracture risk in osteoporosis: the use of fracture prediction tools in an osteoporosis clinic population.Chua, Wei Mei (2016-07)BACKGROUND: In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends either fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) or QFracture to estimate the 10 year fracture risk of individuals. However, it is not known how these tools compare in determining risk and subsequent treatment using set intervention thresholds or guidelines. METHODS: The 10 year major osteoporotic (MO) and hip (HI) fracture risks were calculated for 100 women attending osteoporosis clinic in 2010 using FRAX and QFracture, and subsequent agreement to treatment between the tools was looked at using National Osteoporosis Foundation and National Bone Health Alliance thresholds (FRAX-20/3 and QFracture 20/3). We also looked at using these thresholds for QFracture and comparing them with the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidelines for FRAX (FRAX-NOGG). RESULTS: The 10 year risk for MO fracture for FRAX was 17.0% (IQR 10.8-24.0) and that of QFracture was 15.8% (IQR 9.5-27.7) (p=0.732). The 10 year risk for HI fracture for FRAX was 5.0% (IQR 2.1-8.9) and that of QFracture was 8.1% (IQR 2.5-21.6) (p<0.001). The agreement between FRAX-20/3 and QFracture-20/3 was greater than the agreement between FRAX-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG or QFracture-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated 10 year risk for MO fracture between FRAX and QFracture was similar, whereas that of HI fracture was significantly different. The agreement to treatment between QFracture-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG was only 45%. Treatment decisions can differ depending on the fracture calculation tool used when coupled with certain intervention thresholds or guidelines.
Femoral Nerve Block Intervention in Neck of Femur Fracture (FINOF): a randomised controlled trial.Walt, Gerrie Van De (2018-04)OBJECTIVE: Fractured neck of femur is a severely painful condition with significant mortality and morbidity. We investigated whether early and continuous use of femoral nerve block can improve pain on movement and mobility after surgery in older participants with fragility neck of femur fracture. DESIGN: Prospective single-centre, randomised controlled pragmatic trial. SETTING: Secondary care, acute National Health Service Trust, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Participants admitted with a history and examination suggesting fractured neck of femur. INTERVENTION: Immediate continuous femoral nerve block via catheter or standard analgesia. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were Cumulative Dynamic Pain score and Cumulated Ambulation Score from surgery until day 3 postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included pain scores at rest, cumulative side effects (nausea and constipation), quality of life (measured by EuroQOL 5 D instrument (EQ-5D) score) at day 3 and day 30, and rehabilitation outcome (measured by mobility score). RESULTS: 141 participants were recruited, with 23 excluded. No significant difference was detected between Cumulative Dynamic Pain Score (standard care (n=56) vs intervention (n=55) 20 (IQR 15-24) vs 20 (15-23), p=0.51) or Cumulated Ambulation Score (standard care vs intervention 6 (5-9) vs 7 (5-10), p=0.76). There were no statistically different differences in secondary outcomes except cumulative pain at rest: 5 (0.5-6.5) in the standard care group and 2 (0-5) in the intervention group (p=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Early application of continuous femoral nerve block compared with standard systemic analgesia did not result in improved dynamic pain score or superior postoperative ambulation. This technique may provide superior pain relief at rest. Continuous femoral nerve block did not delay initial control of pain or mobilisation after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN92946117; Pre-results