Literature DB >> 24553898

Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality.

Kirsten M B Huntjens1, Tineke A C M van Geel2, Joop P W van den Bergh3, Svenhjalmar van Helden4, Paul Willems1, Bjorn Winkens2, John A Eisman2, Piet P Geusens1, Peter R G Brink1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A fracture liaison service model of care is widely recommended and applied, but data on its effectiveness are scarce. Therefore, the risk of subsequent nonvertebral fractures and mortality within two years after a nonvertebral fracture was analyzed in patients who presented to a hospital with a fracture liaison service and a hospital without a fracture liaison service.
METHODS: In 2005 to 2006, all consecutive patients with an age of fifty years or older presenting with a nonvertebral fracture were included. In the group that presented to a hospital without a fracture liaison service (the no-FLS group), only standard fracture care procedures were followed to address proper fracture-healing. In the group that presented to a hospital with a fracture liaison service (the FLS group), dual x-ray absorptiometry scans and laboratory testing were performed, and if applicable, patients were treated according to the Dutch guideline for osteoporosis. The risk for subsequent nonvertebral fracture and mortality were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression models with adjustments for age, sex, and baseline fracture location.
RESULTS: In total, 1412 patients presented to the fracture liaison service (73.2% were women, and the mean age was 71.1 years), and 1910 underwent standard fracture care (69.8% were women, and the mean age was 69.5 years). After adjustment for age, sex, and baseline fracture location, patients who attended the fracture liaison service had a significantly lower mortality risk (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 0.79) over two years of follow-up. The subsequent nonvertebral fracture risk was also significantly lower in the patients in the FLS group, but this effect was time-dependent, with a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.64 to 1.10) at twelve months and 0.44 (95% CI: 0.25 to 0.79) at twenty-four months.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients seen at the fracture liaison service had a significantly lower mortality and subsequently a lower risk of nonvertebral fracture than those not seen at the fracture liaison service, with a reduction of 35% and 56%, respectively, over two years of follow-up. A fracture liaison service appears to be a successful approach to reduce the number of subsequent fractures and premature mortality in this cohort of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24553898     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  58 in total

Review 1.  Fracture liaison services: do they reduce fracture rates?

Authors:  Irma J A de Bruin; Caroline E Wyers; Joop P W van den Bergh; Piet P M M Geusens
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 5.346

2.  Two-year adherence to treatment and associated factors in a fracture liaison service in Spain.

Authors:  A Naranjo; S Ojeda-Bruno; A Bilbao-Cantarero; J C Quevedo-Abeledo; B V Diaz-González; C Rodríguez-Lozano
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Risk factors for osteoporosis 2000-2012.

Authors:  Robert A Adler
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 3.633

4.  Five-year refracture rates of a province-wide fracture liaison service.

Authors:  R Sujic; D E Beaton; M Mamdani; S M Cadarette; J Luo; S Jaglal; J E M Sale; R Jain; E Bogoch
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: evaluation of the Lille University Hospital's Fracture Liaison Service between January 2016 and January 2018.

Authors:  A Pflimlin; A Gournay; I Delabrière; C Chantelot; F Puisieux; B Cortet; J Paccou
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Automated opportunistic osteoporotic fracture risk assessment using computed tomography scans to aid in FRAX underutilization.

Authors:  Noa Dagan; Eldad Elnekave; Noam Barda; Orna Bregman-Amitai; Amir Bar; Mila Orlovsky; Eitan Bachmat; Ran D Balicer
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  Association of Self-Reported Frailty with Falls and Fractures among Patients New to Dialysis.

Authors:  Cynthia Delgado; Stephanie Shieh; Barbara Grimes; Glenn M Chertow; Lorien S Dalrymple; George A Kaysen; John Kornak; Kirsten L Johansen
Journal:  Am J Nephrol       Date:  2015-09-19       Impact factor: 3.754

Review 8.  Considerations in the Treatment of Osteoporotic Distal Radius Fractures in Elderly Patients.

Authors:  Peter J Ostergaard; Matthew J Hall; Tamara D Rozental
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2019-03

9.  Delivering a quality-assured fracture liaison service in a UK teaching hospital-is it achievable?

Authors:  K E Shipman; J Stammers; A Doyle; N Gittoes
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Value of a coordinated management of osteoporosis via Fracture Liaison Service for the treatment of orthogeriatric patients.

Authors:  D Schray; C Neuerburg; J Stein; M Gosch; M Schieker; W Böcker; C Kammerlander
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 3.693

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.