E W K Peng1, S Elnikety, N C Hatrick. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The national guideline recommends selective case finding as the main strategy by identification of high risk people. This study assessed whether high risk patients were identified before their presentation with fragility fracture. METHODS: A prospective study for 3.5 consecutive months on patients with low energy hip fractures to Brighton and Sussex University Hospital NHS Trusts, which serves a population of 460,000. Data were collected by interview using standardised form, medical record review, and communication with family physicians. Definition of high risk: (1) untreated hypogonadism (2) corticosteroid users (3) disorders with increased bone loss (4) previous fragility fractures. RESULTS: 98 patients were admitted with hip fracture. Thirty nine (40%) had at least one high risk factor. High risk patients (7 of 39, 18%) were no more likely to receive prophylaxis compared with patients without high risk factor (5 of 59, 8%) (p = 0.21). Previous fragility fracture (23) was the commonest risk factor followed by disorders with increased bone loss (10), premature menopause (10), and corticosteroid users (5). Fifteen patients (15%) had susceptibility to frequent falls and two had maternal history of osteoporosis. The proportion of treated patients were 20% (2 of 10) in premature menopause, 10% (1 of 10) in diseases with secondary osteoporosis, 13% (3 of 23) in previous fragility fracture, and 80% (4 of 5) in corticosteroid users (p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Prevention of hip fracture is still inadequate in high risk patients. Discrepancy seemed to exist in treatment frequency among different high risk groups suggesting that emphasis on prevention of osteoporosis has not been reinforced in all people at risk.
OBJECTIVE: The national guideline recommends selective case finding as the main strategy by identification of high risk people. This study assessed whether high risk patients were identified before their presentation with fragility fracture. METHODS: A prospective study for 3.5 consecutive months on patients with low energy hip fractures to Brighton and Sussex University Hospital NHS Trusts, which serves a population of 460,000. Data were collected by interview using standardised form, medical record review, and communication with family physicians. Definition of high risk: (1) untreated hypogonadism (2) corticosteroid users (3) disorders with increased bone loss (4) previous fragility fractures. RESULTS: 98 patients were admitted with hip fracture. Thirty nine (40%) had at least one high risk factor. High risk patients (7 of 39, 18%) were no more likely to receive prophylaxis compared with patients without high risk factor (5 of 59, 8%) (p = 0.21). Previous fragility fracture (23) was the commonest risk factor followed by disorders with increased bone loss (10), premature menopause (10), and corticosteroid users (5). Fifteen patients (15%) had susceptibility to frequent falls and two had maternal history of osteoporosis. The proportion of treated patients were 20% (2 of 10) in premature menopause, 10% (1 of 10) in diseases with secondary osteoporosis, 13% (3 of 23) in previous fragility fracture, and 80% (4 of 5) in corticosteroid users (p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Prevention of hip fracture is still inadequate in high risk patients. Discrepancy seemed to exist in treatment frequency among different high risk groups suggesting that emphasis on prevention of osteoporosis has not been reinforced in all people at risk.
Authors: J Kanis; O Johnell; B Gullberg; E Allander; L Elffors; J Ranstam; J Dequeker; G Dilsen; C Gennari; A L Vaz; G Lyritis; G Mazzuoli; L Miravet; M Passeri; R Perez Cano; A Rapado; C Ribot Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M C Chapuy; R Pamphile; E Paris; C Kempf; M Schlichting; S Arnaud; P Garnero; P J Meunier Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: D M Black; S R Cummings; D B Karpf; J A Cauley; D E Thompson; M C Nevitt; D C Bauer; H K Genant; W L Haskell; R Marcus; S M Ott; J C Torner; S A Quandt; T F Reiss; K E Ensrud Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-12-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S R Cummings; D M Black; D E Thompson; W B Applegate; E Barrett-Connor; T A Musliner; L Palermo; R Prineas; S M Rubin; J C Scott; T Vogt; R Wallace; A J Yates; A Z LaCroix Journal: JAMA Date: 1998 Dec 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jacques E Rossouw; Garnet L Anderson; Ross L Prentice; Andrea Z LaCroix; Charles Kooperberg; Marcia L Stefanick; Rebecca D Jackson; Shirley A A Beresford; Barbara V Howard; Karen C Johnson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Judith Ockene Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-07-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Heike A Bischoff; Hannes B Stähelin; Walter Dick; Regula Akos; Margrith Knecht; Christian Salis; Matthias Nebiker; Robert Theiler; Michael Pfeifer; Bettina Begerow; Robert A Lew; Martin Conzelmann Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: M Larrosa; A Gomez; E Casado; M Moreno; I Vázquez; C Orellana; E Berlanga; J Ramon; J Gratacos Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: E Lönnroos; H Kautiainen; R Sund; P Karppi; S Hartikainen; I Kiviranta; R Sulkava Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 4.507