In recent literature, the fragility index (FI) has been used to evaluate the robustness of statistically significant findings of dichotomous outcomes. This metric is defined as the minimum number of outcome events to flip study conclusions from significant to nonsignificant. Orthopaedics literature is frequently found to be fragile with a median FI of 2 in 150 RCTs across spine, hand, sports medicine, trauma and orthopaedic oncology studies. While many papers discuss limitations of FI, we aimed to further characterize it by introducing the Fragility Likelihood (FL), a new metric that allows us to consider the probability of the event to occur and to calculate the likelihood of this fragility to be reached. We systematically reviewed all randomized controlled trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am) over 10 years. The FL was calculated with the following formula: A x B x C x 100% (A= FI; B = probability of the event in the group with the smallest number of events; C= probability of the non-event in the group with the highest number of events). A smaller FL demonstrates more robust results and conversely, a larger FL illustrates a higher likelihood of fragility being reached and more fragile the findings. The median FI for the statistically significant outcomes was 2 (Mean: 3.8; Range 0-23). The median FL for the statistically significant outcomes was 11% (Mean: 22%, Range: 2%-73%). This means that the probability of reaching non-significance is only 11% when considering the probability of the event to occur. When comparing studies with the same FI we found the FL to range from 3% to 43%. This illustrates the large differences in robustness between trials with equal FI when the likelihood of the event was taken into consideration. As orthopaedic studies are frequently reported as fragile, we found that by calculating the FL, studies may be more robust than previously assumed based off FI alone. By using the FL in conjunction with FI and p-values will provide additional insight into the robustness of the reported outcomes. Our results indicate that by calculating the FL, study conclusions are stronger than what the FI alone predicts. Although conducting RCTs in surgery can be challenging, we must endeavor to critically evaluate our results so we can answer important orthopaedic questions with certainty

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care. Methods. We compared all ten established national hip fracture registries: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland; Australia and New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden; Norway; Denmark; and Spain. We tabulated all questions included in each registry, and cross-referenced them against the 32 questions of the MCD dataset. Having identified those questions consistently used in the majority of national audits, and which additional fields were used less commonly, we then used consensus methods to establish a revised MCD. Results. A total of 215 unique questions were used across the ten registries. Only 72 (34%) were used in more than one national audit, and only 32 (15%) by more than half of audits. Only one registry used all 32 questions from the 2014 MCD, and five questions were only collected by a single registry. Only 21 of the 32 questions in the MCD were used in the majority of national audits. Only three fields (anaesthetic grade, operation, and date/time of surgery) were used by all ten established audits. We presented these findings at the Asia-Pacific FFN meeting, and used an online questionnaire to capture feedback from expert clinicians from different countries. A draft revision of the MCD was then presented to all 95 nations represented at the Global FFN conference in September 2021, with online feedback again used to finalize the revised MCD. Conclusion. The revised MCD will help aspirant nations establish new registry programmes, facilitate the integration of novel analytic techniques and greater multinational collaboration, and serve as an internationally-accepted standard for monitoring and improving hip fracture services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):721–728

Fragility ankles fractures in the geriatric population are challenging to manage, due to fracture instability, soft tissue compromise, patient co-morbidities. Traditional management options include open reduction internal fixation, or conservative treatment, both of which are fraught with high complication rates. We aimed to present functional outcomes of elderly patients with fragility ankle fractures treated with tibiotalocalcaneal nails. 171 patients received a tibiotalocalcaneal nail over a six-year period, but only twenty met the inclusion criteria of being over sixty and having poor bone stock, verified by radiological evidence of osteopenia or history of fragility fractures. Primary outcome was mortality risk from co-morbidities, according to the Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI), and patients’ post-operative mobility status compared to pre-operative mobility. Secondary outcomes include intra-operative and post-operative complications, six-month mortality rate, time to mobilisation and union. The mean age was 77.82 years old, five of whom are type 2 diabetics. The average CCI was 5.05. Thirteen patients returned to their pre-operative mobility state. Patients with low CCI are more likely to return to pre-operative mobility status (p=0.16; OR=4.00). Average time to bone union and mobilisation were 92.5 days and 7.63 days, respectively. Mean post-operative AOFAS ankle-hindfoot and Olerud-Molander scores were 53.0 (range 17-88) and 50.9 (range 20-85), respectively. There were four cases of broken distal locking screws, and four cases of superficial infection. Patients with high CCI were more likely to acquire superficial infections (p=0.264, OR=3.857). There were no deep infections, periprosthetic fractures, nail breakages, non-unions. TTC nailing is an effective treatment methodology for low-demand geriatric patients with fragility ankle fractures. This technique leads to low complication rates and early mobilisation. It is not a life-changing procedure, with many able to return to their pre-operative mobility status, which is important for preventing the loss of socioeconomic independence

There has been extensive research into neck of femur fractures in the elderly. Fragility non-hip femoral fractures share many of the same challenges [1]. Surgical management is complex, patients are frail and mortality rates have been reported as high as 38% [2]. Despite this, relatively little data is available evaluating the level of MDT care provided to non-hip femoral fractures. This audit aimed to evaluate the standard of MDT care provided for patients with non-hip femoral fractures according to the NHFD key performance indicators. The following fractures were included in the dataset: distal femoral, femoral shaft and peri-prosthetic femoral. Patients under 65 were excluded. Data was retrospectively collected using post-operative and medical documentation. Performance was assessed according to five key performance indicators:. Did orthogeriatrics review the patient within 72-hours?. Was surgery performed within 36-hours?. Was the patient weight bearing post-operatively?. Was a confusion assessment completed?. Was the patient discharged home?. 38 patients met the inclusion criteria. 84% of patients were seen by orthogeriatrics within 72 hours of admission. 32% of patients were operated on within 36-hours of admission, with time to theatre exceeding 36-hours in 92% of peri-prosthetic fractures. 37% of patients were not advised to full weight bear post operatively. 84% of patients received a confusion assessment whilst 61% of patients were discharged to their prior place of living. Our results suggest that non-hip femoral fractures do not receive the same standard of MDT care as neck of femur fractures. Greater prioritisation of resources should be given to this patient subset so that care is equivalent to hip-fracture patients. Time to surgery is a particular area for improvement, particularly in peri-prosthetic fractures, a trend that is mirrored nationally. Greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging full-weight bearing post-operatively to prevent post-surgical complications

Fragility fractures associated with osteoporosis (OP) reduce quality of life, increase risk for subsequent fractures, and are a major economic burden. In 2010, Osteoporosis Canada produced clinical practice guidelines on the management of OP patients at risk for fractures (Papaioannou et al. CMAJ 2010). We describe the real-world incidence of primary and subsequent fragility fractures in elderly Canadians in Ontario, Canada in a timespan (2011–2017) following guideline introduction. This retrospective observational study used de-identified health services administrative data generated from the publicly funded healthcare system in Ontario, Canada from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The study population included individuals ≥66 years of age who were hospitalized with a primary (i.e. index) fragility fracture (identified using ICD-10 codes from hospital admissions, emergency and ambulatory care) occurring between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2015. All relevant anatomical sites for fragility fractures were examined, including (but not limited to): hip, vertebral, humerus, wrist, radius and ulna, pelvis, and femur. OP treatment in the year prior to fracture and subsequent fracture information were collected until March 31, 2017. Patients with previous fragility fractures over five years prior to the index fracture, and those fractures associated with trauma codes, were excluded. 115,776 patients with an index fracture were included in the analysis. Mean (standard deviation) age at index fracture was 80.4 (8.3) years. In the year prior to index fracture, 32,772 (28.3%) patients received OP treatment. The incidence of index fractures per 1,000 persons (95% confidence interval) from 2011–2015 ranged from 15.16 (14.98–15.35) to 16.32 (16.14–16.51). Of all examined index fracture types, hip fractures occurred in the greatest proportion (27.3%) of patients (Table). The proportion of patients incurring a second fracture of any type ranged from 13.4% (tibia, fibula, knee, or foot index fracture) to 23% (vertebral index fracture). Hip fractures were the most common subsequent fracture type and the proportion of subsequent hip fractures was highest in patients with an index hip fracture (Table). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to second fracture ranged from 436 (69–939) days (radius and ulna index fracture) to 640 (297–1,023) days (tibia, fibula, knee, or foot index fracture). The median (IQR) time from second to third fracture ranged from 237 (75–535) days (pelvis index fracture) to 384 (113–608) days (femur index fracture). This real-world study found that elderly patients in Ontario, Canada incurring a primary fragility fracture from 2011–2015 were at risk for future fractures occurring over shorter periods of time with each subsequent fracture. These observations are consistent with previous reports of imminent fracture risk and the fragility fracture cascade in OP patients (Balasubramanian et al. ASBMR 2016, Toth et al. WCO-IOF-ESCEO 2018). Overall, these data suggest that in elderly patients with an index fragility fracture at any site (with the exception of the radius or ulna), the most likely subsequent fracture will occur at the hip in less than 2 years

Introduction: Fragility fractures are taking up an increasing amount of resources within Trauma departments. Women have a 1 in 3, men a 1 in 12 lifetime risk of sustaining an osteoporotic fracture with a previous fracture being the strongest independent predictor of sustaining a further fragility fracture, often within one year. Secondary prevention is therefore particularly important. Many guidelines give advice on secondary prevention in women, but very few mention men even though men have a higher morbidity and mortality after hip fractures. Methods: A retrospective review was carried out including 91 patients (48 females, 43 males) who were admitted with a fragility hip fracture between March 2003 and April 2004. Data about age, sex, investigations and medication were collected from the case notes, GP surgeries and the bone densitometry database. Investigations and treatment were compared with current guidelines (SIGN 2003, NICE 2005). Data was analysed using SPSS Version 13.0. Results: 33% of women and only 8% of men < 75 years of age were investigated for osteoporosis (DEXA scan) following their hip fracture (Fishers Exact Test, p = 0.32). In patients ≥ 75 years 25% of women and only 6% of men were treated with bisphosphonates (χ. 2. = 4.18, p < 0.05). There was also a statistically significant difference in overall treatment including bisphosphonates and calcium/vitamin D between the sexes (χ. 2. = 6.81, p < 0.05). Discussion: This study shows that there is a great need for improvement in secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in both sexes, but men are far less likely to receive investigations and treatment than women. It is therefore essential to include recommendations for men in future guidelines and to increase awareness of male osteoporosis. Orthopaedic surgeons should take responsibility for initiating the process of secondary prevention

We aimed to audit the results of one stop fragility fracture risk assessment service at fracture clinic for non-hip fractures in 50–75 years old patients at Newcastle General Hospital. Currently, fewer than 30% of patients with fragility fractures benefit from secondary prevention in the form of comprehensive risk assessment and bone protection because of multifactorial reasons. We have a fragility fracture risk assessment service staffed by an Osteoporosis Specialist Nurse equipped with a DEXA scanner located at the fracture clinic itself.

We carried out a retrospective audit of 349 patients of 50–75 years with suspected non-hip fractures referred from A& E Department from October 2006 to September 2007. Patients over 75 years were excluded because as per NICE guidelines, they should receive bone protection without need of a DEXA scan.

Out of these 349 patients with suspected fractures, 171 had fragility fractures. Median age was 64 years. 69 patients had humerus fracture, 65 had forearm fracture and 23 patients had ankle fracture and 14 had metatarsal fractures. Fracture risk assessment was carried out in 120 (70%) patients. Thirty Seven (31%) patients had osteoporosis and bone protection was recommended to GP. 38 (32%) had osteopenia and lifestyle advice was provided. 45 (37%) had normal axial bone densitometry. 90% patients had DEXA scan at the same time of fracture clinic appointment. Patients with male gender, undisplaced fracture and fewer fracture clinic appointments were more likely to miss fracture risk assessment.

Our experience suggests that locating fragility fracture risk assessment service co-ordinated by an Osteoporosis Specialist Nurse at fracture clinic is an efficient way of providing secondary prevention for patients with fragility fractures. This can improve team communication, eliminate delay and improve patient compliance because of ‘One Stop Shop’ service at the time of fracture clinic appointment.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there have been changes in the complexity of femoral fragility fractures presenting to our Dunedin Orthopaedic Department, New Zealand, over a period of ten years.

Patients over the age of 60 presenting with femoral fragility fractures to Dunedin Hospital in 2009 −10 (335 fractures) were compared with respect to demographic data, incidence rates, fracture classification and treatment details to the period 2018-19 (311 fractures). Pathological and high velocity fractures were excluded.

The gender proportion and average age (83.1 vs 83.0 years) was unchanged. The overall incidence of femoral fractures in people over 60 years in our region fell by 27% (p<0.001). Intracapsular fractures (31 B1 and B2) fell by 29% (p=0.03) and stable trochanteric fractures by 56% (p<0.001). The incidence of unstable trochanteric fractures (31A2 and 31A3) increased by 84.5% from 3.5 to 6.4/10,000 over 60 years (p = 0.04). The proportion of trochanteric fractures treated with an intramedullary (IM) nail increased from 8% to 37% (p <0.001). Fewer intracapsular fractures were treated by internal fixation (p<0.001) and the rate of acute total hip joint replacements increased from 13 to 21% (p=0.07). The incidence of femoral shaft fractures did not change significantly with periprosthetic fractures comprising 70% in both cohorts.

While there has been little difference in the numbers there has been a decrease in the incidence of femoral fragility fractures likely due to the increasing use of bisphosphonates. However, the incidence of unstable trochanteric fractures is increasing. This has led to the increased use of IM nails which are increasingly used for stable fractures as well.

The increasing complexity of femoral fragility fractures is likely to have an impact on implant use, theatre time and cost.

The widely used Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) estimates a 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using age, sex, body mass index, and seven clinical risk factors, including prior history of fracture. Prior fracture is a binary variable in FRAX, although it is now clear that prior fractures affect future MOF risk differently depending on their recency and site. Risk of MOF is highest in the first two years following a fracture and then progressively decreases with time – this is defined as imminent risk. Therefore, the FRAX tool may underestimate true fracture risk and result in missed opportunities for earlier osteoporosis management in individuals with recent MOF. To address this, multipliers based on age, sex, and fracture type may be applied to baseline FRAX scores for patients with recent fractures, producing a more accurate prediction of both short- and long-term fracture risk. Adjusted FRAX estimates may enable earlier pharmacologic treatment and other risk reduction strategies. This study aimed to report the effect of multipliers on conventional FRAX scores in a clinical cohort of patients with recent non-hip fragility fractures.

After obtaining Research Ethics Board approval, FRAX scores were calculated both before and after multiplier adjustment, for patients included in our outpatient Fracture Liaison Service who had experienced a non-hip fragility fracture between June 2020 and November 2021. Patients age 50 years or older, with recent (within 3 months) forearm (radius and/or ulna) or humerus fractures were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients under the age of 50 years or those with a hip fracture. Age- and sex-based FRAX multipliers for recent forearm and humerus fractures described by McCloskey et al. (2021) were used to adjust the conventional FRAX score. Low, intermediate and high-risk of MOF was defined as less than 10%, 10-20%, and greater than 20%, respectively. Data are reported as mean and standard deviation of the mean for continuous variables and as proportions for categorical variables.

A total of 91 patients with an average age of 64 years (range = 50-97) were included. The majority of patients were female (91.0%), with 73.6% sustaining forearm fractures and 26.4% sustaining humerus fractures. In the forearm group, the average MOF risk pre- and post-multiplier was 16.0 and 18.8, respectively. Sixteen percent of patients (n = 11) in the forearm group moved from intermediate to high 10-year fracture risk after multiplier adjustment. Average FRAX scores before and after adjustment in the humerus group were 15.7 and 22.7, respectively, with 25% (n = 6) of patients moving from an intermediate risk to a high-risk score.

This study demonstrates the clinically significant impact of multipliers on conventional FRAX scores in patients with recent non-hip fractures. Twenty-five percent of patients with humerus fractures and 16% of patients with forearm fractures moved from intermediate to high-risk of MOF after application of the multiplier. Consequently, patients who were previously ineligible for pharmacologic management, now met criteria. Multiplier-adjusted FRAX scores after a recent fracture may more accurately identify patients with imminent fracture risk, facilitating earlier risk reduction interventions.

The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) is validated to predict mortality after fragility neck of femur fractures (NOF). Risk stratification supports informed consent, peri-operative optimisation and case prioritisation.

With the inclusion of fragility distal femur fractures (DFF) in the BPT, increasing attention is being placed on the outcome of these injuries. Developing on the lessons learnt over the past decades in NOF management is key.

This study assesses the validity of the NHFS in predicting mortality after fragility DFFs.

A multi-centre study of 3 high volume fragility fracture units was performed via a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected databases.

Patients aged 60 years-of-age who presented with AO 33.A/B/C native DFF, or V.3.A/B periprosthetic DFF over an 86-month period between September 2014 and December 2021 and underwent surgical treatment were eligible for inclusion. Open and/or polytrauma (ISS >15) were excluded.

All operations were performed or supervised by Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeons and were reviewed peri-operatively by a 7-day MDT.

Patients with a NHFS of gt;=5 were stratified into a high-risk of 30-day mortality cohort, with all others being œlow-risk.

285 patients were eligible for inclusion with 92 considered to be low-risk of 30-day mortality, these tended to be younger female patients admitted from their own homes.

30-day mortality was 0% in the low-risk cohort and 6.2% (12/193) in the high-risk group. 1-year mortality was 8.7% (8/92) and 35.7% (69/193) in the low and high-risk groups respectively.

Area Under the Curve (AUC) analyses of Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves demonstrated the greatest ability to predict mortality at 30-days for the high-risk cohort (0.714).

The NHFS demonstrates a good ability to predict 30-day mortality in those patients with a NHFS =5 after a surgically managed fragility DFF. With comparable mortality outcomes to those documented from fragility NOF.

Introduction

Ankle fractures in the elderly have been increasing with an ageing but active population and bring with them specific challenges. Medical co-morbidities, a poor soft tissue envelope and a requirement for early mobilisation to prevent morbidity and mortality, all create potential pitfalls to successful treatment. As a result, different techniques have been employed to try and improve outcomes. Total contact casting, both standard and enhanced open reduction internal fixation, external fixation and most recently tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing have all been proposed as suitable treatment modalities. Over the past five years popular literature has begun to herald TTC nailing as an appropriate and contemporary solution to the complex problem of high-risk ankle fragility fractures. We sought to assess whether, within our patient cohort, the outcomes seen supported the statement that TTC has equal outcomes to more traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) when used to treat the high-risk ankle fragility fracture.

Abstract

Introduction

With an aging population, the prevalence of fragility ankle fractures is rising. The surgical management of these injuries is challenging and associated with high rates of complications. The incidence of fragility ankle fractures is currently estimated to be around 150 per 100,000 people annually and is anticipated to rise to around 269 per 100,000 by 2030. The aim of surgery is to restore mobility, preserve function and to prevent complications related to non-weight-bearing and the application of hind foot nail (HFN) seems to provide these advantages. This systematic review aims to investigate the role of HFN in the treatment of fragility ankle fractures. We aim to review the available evidence published on the functional recovery observed in patients following treatment with HFN and the observed complications in the literature.

Introduction and Objective

Geriatric patients with a fragility fracture of the hip (FFH) are especially prone to sarcopenia with poor functional outcomes and quality of life. We assessed the prevalence of sarcopenia in older South African patients with FFH. Risk factors for sarcopenia were also investigated

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an inexpensive antifibrinolytic. Currently there are no national guidelines in the UK that promote the use of TXA in femoral fragility fracture (FFF) management.

The aim of the study was to determine whether intra-operative intravenous TXA affects the requirement for post-operative blood transfusion following FFF surgery.

A prospective non-randomized case-control study of consecutive FFF admitted to the study centre was performed. 361 patients were included in the study (mean age 81.4yrs; mean BMI 23.5; 73.7% female). TXA was given at the discretion of the operating surgeon, with 178 (49%) patients receiving TXA. Patient demographics, surgical management, peri-operative haemoglobin (Hb) and haematocrit, intravenous TXA use, and requirement for blood transfusion were recorded prospectively. Percentage fall in Hb from preoperative level was calculated at postoperative day one. Calculated-blood-loss (CBL) was determined using the Nadler and Gross formulae.

The groups were well matched in terms of patient demographics, injury types and surgical management. The requirement for postoperative blood transfusion was significantly reduced in the TXA group: 15/178 (8.4%) compared to 58/183 (31.7%) (p<0.001; Chi square). TXA significantly reduced both the percentage fall in Hb (mean difference 4.3%, p<0.001) and the CBL (mean difference -222ml, p<0.001). There was no difference in venous thrombosis embolism events between the groups.

Intra-operative intravenous TXA during the surgical management of FFF significantly reduced rate of transfusion, CBL and the percentage drop in HB.

Surgical treatment of fragility sacrum fractures with percutaneous sacroiliac (SI) screw fixation is associated with high failure rates in terms of screw loosening, cut-through and turn-out. The latter is a common cause for complications, being detected in up to 20% of the patients. The aim of this study was to develop a new screw-in-screw concept and prototype implant for fragility sacrum fracture fixation and test it biomechanically versus transsacral and SI screw fixations.

Twenty-seven artificial pelves with discontinued symphysis and a vertical osteotomy in zone 1 after Denis were assigned to three groups (n = 9) for implantation of their right sites with either an SI screw, the new screw-in-screw implant, or a transsacral screw. All specimens were biomechanically tested to failure in upright position with the right ilium constrained. Validated setup and test protocol were used for complex axial and torsional loading, applied through the S1 vertebral body. Interfragmentary movements were captured via optical motion tracking. Screw motions in the bone were evaluated by means of triggered anteroposterior X-rays.

Interfragmentary movements and implant motions in terms of pull-out, cut-through, tilt, and turn-out were significantly higher for SI screw fixation compared to both transsacral screw and screw-in-screw fixations. In addition, transsacral screw and screw-in-screw fixations revealed similar construct stability. Moreover, screw-in-screw fixation successfully prevented turn-out of the implant, that remained at 0° rotation around the nominal screw axis unexceptionally during testing.

From biomechanical perspective, fragility sacrum fracture fixation with the new screw-in-screw implant prototype provides higher stability than with the use of one SI screw, being able to successfully prevent turn-out. Moreover, it combines the higher stability of transsacral screw fixation with the less risky operational procedure of SI screw fixation and can be considered as their alternative treatment option.

Orthopaedic surgeons frequently assess fragility fractures (FF), however osteoporosis (OP) is often managed by primary care physicians (PCP). Up to 48% of FF patients have had a previous fracture (Kanis et al., 2004). Discontinuity between fracture care and OP management is a missed opportunity to reduce repeat fractures. This studied aimed to evaluate current OP management in FF patients presenting to cast clinic.

A single centre, prospective observational study where seven traumatologists screened for FF in cast clinic. FF was defined as a hip, distal radius (DR), proximal humerus (PH), or ankle fracture due to a ground level fall. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire for demographics, fracture type and treatment, medical and fracture history, and previous OP care. The primary outcome was number of FF patients who received OP investigation and/or treatment. Secondary outcomes included Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), repeat fracture rate, and anti-resorptive related fractures. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.

Between November 17, 2014 and October 13, 2015, a total of 1,677 patients attended cast clinic for an initial assessment. FF were identified in 120 patients (7.2%). The FF cohort had a mean age of 65.3 (± 14.3) years, mean BMI of 26.1 (± 5.3), and was comprised of 83.3% females. Fracture distribution was 69 (57.5%) DR, 23 (19%) ankle, 20 (16.5%) PH, and seven (5.8%) hip fractures, with 24 of the FF (19.8%) treated operatively. Thirteen (10.8%) were current smokers and 40 (33.3%) formerly smoked. A history of steroid use was present in 13 patients (10.8%). Ninety (n = 117; 76.9%) of patients ambulated independently. Twenty-two patients (18.3%) reported prior diagnosis of OP, most often by a PCP (n = 19; 73.7%) over 5 years previously. Calcium (n = 59; 49.2%) and Vitamin D (n = 70; 58.3%) were common and 26 patients (21.5%) had a prior anti-resorptive therapy, with Alendronate (n = 9) being most common. One patient had an anti-resorptive-related fracture. Raloxifene was used in ten patients. Forty-seven patients (39.2%) had a prior fracture at a mean age of 61.3 (± 11.9) years, with DR and PH fractures being most common. Eleven patients had two or more prior fractures. A family history of OP was found in 34 patients (28.1%). Mean FRAX score was 20.8% (± 10.8%) 10-year major fracture risk and 5.9% (± 6.6%) 10-year hip fracture risk (n = 30 bone densiometry within one-year). Of the 26 patients with a Moderate (10–20%) or High (> 20%) 10-year major fracture risk, only eight (30.8%) reported a diagnosis of OP and only three (11.5%) had seen an OP specialist.

Cast clinics provide an opportunity for OP screening, initiation of treatment, and patient education. This cohort demonstrated a high rate of repeat fractures and poor patient reporting of prior OP diagnosis. This study likely underestimated FF and calls for resource allocation for quantifying true burden of disease and outpatient fracture liaison service.

An audit was carried out to assess the management of patients with fragility fractures in fracture clinic and primary care. NICE guidelines advise these patients require treatment for osteoporosis if 75 years or older, and a DEXA scan if below this age.

Distal radius and proximal humeral fractures were identified in a retrospective review of letters from 10 fracture clinics. Current medication of all patients ≥ 75 years was accessed and DEXA scan requests identified for patients < 75 years.

There were 69 fragility fractures: 53 distal radius and 16 proximal humerus. 4 letters (6%) mentioned fragility fracture and advised treatment and 3 (3%) correctly advised a DEXA scan. Only 3 of 25 (10%) patients ≥ 75yrs not previously on osteoporosis medication had treatment started by their GPs. 3 of a possible 29 (10%) patients < 75 years were referred for a DEXA scan.

A text box highlighting fragility fractures and NICE guidelines was added to all clinic letters for patient ≥ 50 years old. Re-audits showed an improvement in management of these fractures, with 45% of patients ≥ 75 years being started on treatment and 39% of patients < 75 years being referred for a DEXA scan.

Summary

Canals are the preferential sites for failure in cortical bone and their architecture is able to dictate the mechanical behaviour of the bone: smaller and branched canals generate a high volume of bone failure even at low apparent tissue strain.