| Literature DB >> 34282186 |
Ronald Man Yeung Wong1, Jianghui Qin1, Wai Wang Chau1, Ning Tang2, Chi Yin Tso2, Hiu Wun Wong1, Simon Kwoon-Ho Chow1, Kwok-Sui Leung1, Wing-Hoi Cheung3.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the prognostic factors predicting the ambulation recovery of fragility hip fracture patients. 2286 fragility hip fracture patients were collected from the Fragility Fracture Registry in Hong Kong. Predictive factors of ambulation deterioration including age, gender, pre-operation American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, pre-fracture mobility, delay to surgery, length of stay, fracture type, type of surgery, discharge destination and complications were identified. Patients with outdoor unassisted and outdoor with aids ambulatory function before fracture had 3- and 1.5-times increased risk of mobility deterioration, respectively (Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.556 and 1.480, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.101-3.111 and 1.246-1.757, both p < 0.001). Patients living in old age homes had almost 1.4 times increased risk of deterioration when compared to those that lived in their homes (OR = 1.363, 95% CI 1.147-1.619, p < 0.001). The risk also increased for every 10 years of age (OR = 1.831, 95% CI 1.607-2.086, p < 0.001). Patients in the higher risk ASA group shows a decreased risk of ambulation deterioration compared to those in lower risk ASA group (OR = 0.831, 95% CI 0.698-0.988, p = 0.038). Patients who suffered from complications after surgery did not increased risk of mobility decline at 1-year post-surgery. Delayed surgery over 48 h, delayed discharge (> 14 days), early discharge (less than 6 days), and length of stay also did not increased risk of mobility decline. Male patients performed worse in terms of their mobility function after surgery compared to female patients (OR = 1.195, 95% CI 1.070-1.335, p = 0.002). This study identified that better premorbid good function, discharge to old age homes especially newly institutionalized patients, increased age, lower ASA score, and male patients, correlate with mobility deterioration at 1-year post-surgery. With the aging population and development of FLS, prompt identification of at-risk patients should be performed for prevention of deterioration.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34282186 PMCID: PMC8289836 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94199-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Logistic regression models of prognostic factors affecting the deterioration in mobility.
| Model | Predictors | r2 | B | SE | Wald | Exp(B) | 95% CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.30 | |||||||
| Age | 0.03 | 0.01 | 21.17 | 1.03 | 1.02, 1.05 | < 0.01 | ||
| Gender | 0.45 | 0.11 | 16.76 | 1.57 | 1.27, 1.95 | < 0.01 | ||
| Pre-op ASA | NS | |||||||
| Pre-fracture mobility | NS | |||||||
| Delay of surgery | NS | |||||||
| Surgical procedure | ||||||||
| No operation performed | 1.11 | 0.56 | 3.91 | 3.05 | 1.01, 9.19 | 0.05 | ||
| Length of stay | NS | |||||||
| Discharge destination from hospital | ||||||||
| OAH | 1.52 | 0.45 | 11.40 | 4.59 | 1.90, 11.11 | < 0.01 | ||
| Complicationsa | NS | |||||||
| 2 | 0.30 | |||||||
| Age | 0.03 | 0.01 | 20.98 | 1.03 | 1.02, 1.05 | < 0.01 | ||
| Gender | 0.46 | 0.11 | 16.92 | 1.58 | 1.27, 1.96 | < 0.01 | ||
| Pre-op ASA | NS | |||||||
| Pre-fracture mobility | NS | |||||||
| Delay of surgery | NS | |||||||
| Surgical procedure | ||||||||
| No operation performed | 1.11 | 0.56 | 3.87 | 3.03 | 1.00, 9.13 | 0.05 | ||
| Arthroplasty—unipolar hemi (uncemented) | 0.96 | 0.49 | 3.87 | 2.60 | 1.00, 6.76 | 0.05 | ||
| Length of stay | NS | |||||||
| Discharge destination from hospital | ||||||||
| OAH | 1.45 | 0.46 | 9.91 | 4.26 | 1.73, 10.49 | < 0.01 | ||
| Complicationsb | NS | |||||||
| 3 | 0.30 | |||||||
| Age | 0.03 | 0.01 | 20.87 | 1.03 | 1.02, 1.05 | < 0.01 | ||
| Gender | 0.46 | 0.11 | 17.05 | 1.58 | 1.27, 1.97 | < 0.01 | ||
| Pre-op ASA | NS | |||||||
| Pre-fracture mobility | NS | |||||||
| Delay of surgery | NS | |||||||
| Surgical procedure | ||||||||
| No operation performed | NS | |||||||
| Arthroplasty—unipolar hemi (uncemented) | 0.97 | 0.49 | 3.97 | 2.64 | 1.02, 6.84 | 0.05 | ||
| Length of stay | NS | |||||||
| Discharge destination from hospital | ||||||||
| OAH | 1.54 | 0.46 | 11.45 | 4.67 | 1.91, 11.39 | < 0.01 | ||
| Complicationsb | NS | |||||||
| Fracture typec | NS |
Dependent variable: Deterioration in mobility (Ref: No): Key: ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, OAH: Old Age Home, NS: Not significant.
Predictors: In Model 1: Gender: Male (Ref: Female). Pre-op ASA: Higher risk (Ref: Lower risk). Pre-fracture mobility: Grade 1 Fully ambulatory, Grade 2 Ambulation with 1 aid, Grade 3 Ambulation with frame, Grade 4 Indoor confined, Grade 5 Standing only (Ref: Non-ambulatory). Delay of surgery: Yes (> 48 h) (Ref: No). Operation: Arthroplasty—bipolar hemi (cemented), Arthroplasty—bipolar hemi (uncemented), Arthroplasty—total hip replacement (THR) (cemented), Arthroplasty—THR (uncemented), Arthroplasty—unipolar hemi (cemented), Arthroplasty—unipolar hemi (uncemented), Excisional arthroplasty, Internal fixation—cannulated screws, Internal fixation—compression hip screw, Internal fixation—IM fixation (Ref: No operation performed). Length of stay: > 14 days, 7–14 days (Ref: < 7 days). Discharge destination from hospital: Home, OAH (Ref: Others). aComplications: Yes (Ref: No).
In Model 2: bPost-op complications: Urinary tract infection: Yes (Ref: No). Chest infection: Yes (Ref: No). Pressure sore: Yes (Ref: No). Delirium: Yes (Ref: No). Deep vein thrombosis: Yes (Ref: No). Wound infection: Yes (Ref: No). Anemia: Yes (Ref: No).
In Model 3: cFracture type: Neck of femur fracture: Yes (Ref: No). Intertrochanteric fracture: Yes (Ref: No). Subtrochanteric fracture: Yes (Ref: No).
Clinical characteristics and statistical analysis results of different groups of patients stratified by mobility category.
| Variables | Mobility regained | Mobility deteriorated | OR | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 846 (37.0%) | 1440 (63.0%) | – | – | – |
| Male | 287 (41.8%) | 400 (58.2%) | 1.195 | 1.070–1.335 | 0.002 |
| Female* | 559 (35.0%) | 1040 (65.0%) | – | – | - |
| < 0.001 | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 82 ± 8.3 | 83 ± 7.4 | |||
| Outdoor unassisted | 178(23.3%) | 587(76.7%) | 2.556 | 2.101–3.111 | < 0.001 |
| Outdoor with aids | 344(32.2%) | 725(67.8%) | 1.480 | 1.246–1.757 | < 0.001 |
| Indoor confined* | 324 (71.7%) | 128 (28.3%) | – | – | – |
| Lower risk group* | 323 (34.5%) | 614 (65.5%) | – | – | – |
| Higher risk group | 523 (38.8%) | 826 (61.2%) | 0.831 | 0.698–0.988 | 0.038 |
| Yes | 322(37.0%) | 549(63.0%) | 1.003 | 0.842–1.194 | 1.000 |
| No* | 524(37.0%) | 891(63.0%) | – | – | – |
| Home* | 509(40.2%) | 757(59.8%) | – | – | – |
| OAH | 337(33.0%) | 683(67.0%) | 1.363 | 1.147–1.619 | < 0.001 |
| Yes | 19(31.7%) | 41(68.3%) | 1.276 | 0.735–2.212 | 0.419 |
| No* | 827(37.2%) | 1399(62.8%) | – | – | – |
| Yes | 57(33.5%) | 113(66.5%) | 1.179 | 0.847–1.640 | 0.364 |
| No* | 789(37.3%) | 1327(62.7%) | – | – | – |
| Yes | 36(32.4%) | 75(67.6%) | 1.236 | 0.823–1.857 | 0.316 |
| No* | 810(37.2%) | 1365(62.8%) | – | – | – |
| Yes | 16(36.4) | 28(63.6) | 1.029 | 0.553–1.913 | 1.000 |
| No* | 830(37.0) | 1412(63.0) | – | – | – |
| ≤ 6 days | 191(37.2%) | 313(62.8%) | 0.988 | 0.805–1.214 | 0.916 |
| 6–14 days* | 447(37.0%) | 760(63.0%) | – | – | – |
| > 14 days | 208(36.2%) | 367(63.8%) | 1.049 | 0.862 – 1.277 | 0.653 |
*Reference group.
Relationship between ambulation deterioration and the residency after geriatric hip fracture after hip fracture.
| Residency after hip fracture | Ambulation deterioration | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| Home to OAH | 323 (84.1) (46.6) | 61 (15.9) (28.4) | < 0.01 |
| OAH to OAH | 370 (70.6) (53.4) | 154 (29.4) (71.6) | |
Odds ratio = 1.19 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.28).