Ilknur Sanli1, Sven H van Helden2, René H M Ten Broeke3, Piet Geusens4, Joop P W Van den Bergh5, Peter R G Brink6, Martijn Poeze6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. ilknursanli@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Trauma Surgery, Isala Clinics Zwolle, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Subdivision of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Viecuri Medical Centre of Noord Limburg, Venlo, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Trauma Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several guidelines recommend a bone and fall-related osteoporosis risk assessment in all patients with fracture and age > 50 years. In practice, however, there is no consensus whether screening > 85 years is useful. AIM: To evaluate the subsequent fracture risk in all patient > 85 years, comparing the two populations of Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) attenders and non-attenders. METHODS: All patients > 85 years that presented at the FLS with a non-vertebral fracture were included in the study during a 5-year period (September 2004 and December 2009). Excluded were pathologic fractures, death < 30 days, or patients on osteoporosis treatment. in patients that attended the FLS, assessment of bone mineral density and fall-risk factors were screened. In both the attenders and non-attenders groups, mortality and subsequent fracture rates were scored during a follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: 282 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria for screening, of which 160 (57%) patients did not attend the FLS. 122 patients were screened for osteoporosis and fall-related risk of whom 72 were diagnosed with osteoporosis. Subsequent fracture risk in both groups was 19%. Medical treatment was started in 51 patients, of which 15 patients developed a subsequent fracture. Cox-regression analysis indicated a significantly lower mortality rate, but not a diminished subsequent fracture rate in the FLS screened population compared to the non-attenders. CONCLUSION: The advantage of a FLS in reducing subsequent fracture risk in patients > 85 years seems to be limited. In practice a large proportion of these patients are not screened.
BACKGROUND: Several guidelines recommend a bone and fall-related osteoporosis risk assessment in all patients with fracture and age > 50 years. In practice, however, there is no consensus whether screening > 85 years is useful. AIM: To evaluate the subsequent fracture risk in all patient > 85 years, comparing the two populations of Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) attenders and non-attenders. METHODS: All patients > 85 years that presented at the FLS with a non-vertebral fracture were included in the study during a 5-year period (September 2004 and December 2009). Excluded were pathologic fractures, death < 30 days, or patients on osteoporosis treatment. in patients that attended the FLS, assessment of bone mineral density and fall-risk factors were screened. In both the attenders and non-attenders groups, mortality and subsequent fracture rates were scored during a follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: 282 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria for screening, of which 160 (57%) patients did not attend the FLS. 122 patients were screened for osteoporosis and fall-related risk of whom 72 were diagnosed with osteoporosis. Subsequent fracture risk in both groups was 19%. Medical treatment was started in 51 patients, of which 15 patients developed a subsequent fracture. Cox-regression analysis indicated a significantly lower mortality rate, but not a diminished subsequent fracture rate in the FLS screened population compared to the non-attenders. CONCLUSION: The advantage of a FLS in reducing subsequent fracture risk in patients > 85 years seems to be limited. In practice a large proportion of these patients are not screened.
Authors: T Chevalley; M L Brandi; E Cavalier; N C Harvey; G Iolascon; C Cooper; D Hannouche; J-F Kaux; A Kurth; S Maggi; G Maier; K Papavasiliou; N Al-Daghri; M Sosa-Henríquez; N Suhm; U Tarantino; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: D González-Quevedo; V Pérez-Del-Río; D Moriel-Garceso; N Fernández-Arroyabe; G García-Meléndez; M Montañez-Ruiz; M Bravo-Bardají; D García-de-Quevedo; I Tamimi Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Lisanne Vranken; Caroline E Wyers; Robert Y Van der Velde; Heinrich M J Janzing; Sjoerd Kaarsemakers; Johanna Driessen; John Eisman; Jacqueline R Center; Tuan V Nguyen; Thach Tran; Dana Bliuc; Piet Geusens; Joop P van den Bergh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Timothy J S Chesser; Muhammad Kassim Javaid; Zaineb Mohsin; Carlotta Pari; Alberto Belluati; Achille Contini; Vincenzo Caiaffa; Francisco Chana-Rodríguez; Jesus Gómez-Vallejo; Coral Sánchez-Pérez; Zoe H Dailiana; Nikolaos Stefanou; Theodoros Tosounidis; Michaël Laurent; Guy Putzeys; Martijn Poeze; Kees Jan Ponsen Journal: OTA Int Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: M K Javaid; A Sami; W Lems; P Mitchell; T Thomas; A Singer; R Speerin; M Fujita; D D Pierroz; K Akesson; P Halbout; S Ferrari; C Cooper Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 4.507