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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Purpose

To describe the implication of Family Physicians (FPs) in the management of osteoporosis revealed by a fragility fracture.

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is an essential part of orthopaedic surgeries in preventing life-threatening thromboembolic events such as Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and Pulmonary Embolism (PE). Orthopaedic surgery has the highest incidence rate of thromboembolic events as compared to any other surgical specialities, making it an essential component in managing any orthopaedic case. At Queen's Medical Centre (QMC), a major trauma centre in the United Kingdom (UK), sees up to 750 NOF fracture cases annually, making it one of the busiest trauma and orthopaedic centres in the UK. Our study aims to evaluate how VTE Prophylaxis is conducted in a UK Major Trauma Centre for NOF and pelvic fragility fractures and how human factors can improve its efficacy.

The Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) Trust has implemented new guidelines from August 2019 that patients with fragility fractures such as NOF and pelvic fractures are prescribed with 28 days VTE prophylaxis with Enoxaparin, or their own anti-coagulants if risk of thrombosis exceed the risk of bleeding. This is an adaptation from the trust to align their guidelines closer to the NICE 2018 guidelines. We will be evaluating the initial compliance of VTE Prophylaxis, identify and utilise human factors, then re-analyse the department after implementing interventions on the same batch of junior doctors working in the department. Data of 100 patients with fragility fractures were collected, 50 consecutive patients in the pre-intervention window during August 2019 and 50 in the post-intervention window during November 2019.

The pre-intervention data had 43 NOF and 7 Pelvic fractures. Our study showed that 93% of NOF fracture and 100% of pelvic fracture received the correct course of VTE prophylaxis. The data was presented at the local department junior doctor academic session. Three simple human factor interventions were implemented over the course of September and October: Education to the trauma and orthopaedic department on the new guideline, extended VTE labels on drug charts for patients with fragility fractures, VTE reminder labels at doctors' stations. Another 50 consecutive patients' data were collected during November 2019. Data shows that 97.8% of NOF (p>0.05) and 60% of pelvic fracture (p>0.05) received the correct course of VTE prophylaxis

Our data has shown an increase in correct VTE prescription for NOF fracture patients, which is the main bulk of our fragility fracture patients whilst we see a drop in pelvic fracture patients. Due to the limited time frame of four months where junior doctors in the UK rotate between specialities, we are only able to collect data during the first month, implement interventions between datasets and collect data on the final month of the four-month rotation. A future bigger study might provide a more significant result on the department. We believe that the key to achieving 100% VTE prophylaxis in the T&O department is optimising human factors, educating junior doctors, who are not orthopaedic trained, with sufficient information of the guidelines, and evidence of the risk and benefits of providing prolonged VTE prophylaxis for orthopaedic patients.

In conclusion, we found that QMC, a major trauma centre with high patient volume and turnover, has a high level of compliance with VTE prophylaxis for fragility fractures and it is imperative that utilising human factors will inch the department closer to its goal of 100% VTE compliance.

The quality of bone in the skeleton depends on the amount of bone, geometry, microarchitecture and material properties, and the molecular and cellular regulation of bone turnover and repair. This study aimed to identify material and structural factors that alter in fragility hip fracture patients treated with antiresorption therapies (FxAr) compared to fragility hip fracture patients not on treatment (Fx).

Bone from the intertrochanteric site, femoral head (FH: FxAr = 5, Fx = 8), compression screw cores and box chisel were obtained from patients undergoing hemi-arthroplasty surgery, FxAr (6f, 2m, mean 79 and range [64–89] years), and Fx (7f, 1m, age 85 [75–93] years). Control bone was obtained at autopsy (9f, 4m, 77 [65–88] years). Treated patients were on various bisphosphonates. Samples were resin-embedded, for quantitative backscattered electron imaging of the degree of mineralisation and assessment of bone architecture. Trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) and architectural parameters were not significantly different between FxAr and Fx groups.

Both groups showed normal distributions of weight (wt) % Ca; however, the FxAr was less mineralised than the Fx and the control group (mean wt % Ca: FxAr = 24.3%, Fx = 24.8%, Control = 24.9%). When comparing the FH specimens only, we found that BV/TV in the FxAr was greater than the Fx group (18% vs 15%). All other parameters were not significantly different. In addition, the mineralisation was greater in the FxAr group compared to the Fx group (25.5 % vs 25.0%) but was not significantly different.

Collectively, these data suggest the effect on bone of antiresorptives may be different for patients on antiresorptive treatment that do not subsequently fracture. Assessment of bone material property data together with other bone quality measures may hold the key to better understanding of antiresorptive treatment efficacy.

Purpose: Recognizing Osteoporosis and Its Consequences in Québec revealed that 73% of women 50y and over are not provided anti-fracture therapy following fragility fracture. This study’s objectives were to determine predictors of osteoporosis (OP) diagnosis (DX) and treatment (TX) 6 to 8 months after fragility fracture.

Method: At phase 1, women were recruited at cast or out-patient clinics within 16 weeks post-fracture. Consenting patients answered a short questionnaire classifying them as experiencing a fragility or traumatic fracture; no reference to the association between fracture and OP was made and no investigation or intervention was proposed. At phase 2, 6–8 months post-fracture, the women completed a questionnaire on demographic features, clinical characteristics and risk factors for OP. The DX (informed of OP and/or BMD measurement with diagnosis of OP) and TX (bisphosphonates, raloxifene, nasal calcitonin or teriparatide) rates of OP were determined via this questionnaire. This analysis included only women with a fragility fracture who were not receiving OP TX at phase 1.

Results: Of the 1273 women completing phase 1, 1001 (79%) sustained a fragility fracture; 818 were untreated at phase 1 and completed the phase 2 questionnaire. Overall, 79% of these participants had not received a DX of osteoporosis or were without OP TX at phase 2. The highest rate of DX and TX of OP occurred 0–5 months post-fracture and decreased considerably thereafter. In multivariate analyses, the results of BMD tests before or after the fracture event (p< 0.0001) and mobility problems (p=0.03) were the only variables that influenced the DX of OP. BMD test results were the strongest predictor (p< 0.0001) of TX followed by the fracture site (hip, femur and pelvis; p=0.015) and administration of vitamin D supplements at the time of fracture (p=0.035). No other risk factors for OP significantly influenced the DX or TX rate. No demographic or clinical features or OP risk factors were significantly associated with the decision to refer women for BMD testing post-fracture.

Conclusion: Although fragility fracture represents a greater risk of future fragility fracture than low BMD, physicians based their decision to treat on BMD and not the clinical event (fragility fracture).

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.

Aims

The effect of the gut microbiota (GM) and its metabolite on bone health is termed the gut-bone axis. Multiple studies have elucidated the mechanisms but findings vary greatly. A systematic review was performed to analyze current animal models and explore the effect of GM on bone.

Aims. National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. Methods. We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD. Results. The highest MCD adherence was demonstrated by the most recently established registries. The first-generation registries in Scandinavia collect data for 60% of MCD fields, second-generation registries (UK, other European, and Australia and New Zealand) collect for 75%, and third-generation registries collect data for 85% of MCD fields. Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age; sex; surgery date/time of operation; surgery type; and death during acute admission). Two fields were collected by most (16/17; 94%) registries (date/time of presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), and five more by the majority (15/17; 88%) registries (type, side, and pathological nature of fracture; anaesthetic modality; and discharge destination). Three core fields were each collected by only 11/17 (65%) registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living; cognition on admission; and bone protection medication prescription. Conclusion. There is moderate but improving compatibility between existing registries and the FFN MCD, and its introduction in 2022 was associated with an improved level of adherence among the most recently established programmes. Greater interoperability could be facilitated by improving consistency of data collection relating to prefracture function, cognition, bone protection, and follow-up duration, and this could improve international collaborative benchmarking, research, and quality improvement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1013–1019

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

Aims. To identify factors influencing clinicians’ decisions to undertake a nonoperative hip fracture management approach among older people, and to determine whether there is global heterogeneity regarding these factors between clinicians from high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Methods. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was electronically distributed to clinicians around the world through the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN)’s Perioperative Special Interest Group and clinicians’ personal networks between 24 May and 25 July 2021. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA v16.0. Between-group differences were determined using independent-samples t-tests and chi-squared tests. Results. A total of 406 respondents from 51 countries answered the questionnaire, of whom 225 came from HIC and 180 from LMIC. Clinicians from HIC reported a greater median and mean estimated proportion of admitted patients with hip fracture undergoing surgery (median 96% (interquartile range (IQR) 95% to 99%); mean 94% (SD 8%)) than those from LMIC (median 85% (IQR 75% to 95%); mean 81% (SD 16%); p < 0.001). Global heterogeneity seems to exist regarding factors such as anticipated life expectancy, insufficient resources, ability to pay, treatment costs, and perception of risk in hip fracture management decision-making. Conclusion. This study represents the first international sampling of clinician perspectives regarding nonoperative hip fracture management. Several factors seemed to influence the clinician decision-making process. Further research is needed to inform the development of best practice guidelines to improve decision-making and the quality of hip fracture care among older people. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):766–775

Research into COVID-19 has been rapid in response to the dynamic global situation, which has resulted in heterogeneity of methodology and the communication of information. Adherence to reporting standards would improve the quality of evidence presented in future studies, and may ensure that findings could be interpreted in the context of the wider literature. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a dynamic situation, requiring continued assessment of the disease incidence and monitoring for the emergence of viral variants and their transmissibility, virulence, and susceptibility to vaccine-induced immunity. More work is needed to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection on patients who sustain a hip fracture. The International Multicentre Project Auditing COVID-19 in Trauma & Orthopaedics (IMPACT) formed the largest multicentre collaborative audit conducted in orthopaedics in order to provide an emergency response to a global pandemic, but this was in the context of many vital established audit services being disrupted at an early stage, and it is crucial that these resources are protected during future health crises. Rapid data-sharing between regions should be developed, with wider adoption of the revised 2022 Fragility Fracture Network Minimum Common Data Set for Hip Fracture Audit, and a pragmatic approach to information governance processes in order to facilitate cooperation and meta-audit. This editorial aims to: 1) identify issues related to COVID-19 that require further research; 2) suggest reporting standards for studies of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; 3) consider the requirement of new risk scores for hip fracture patients; and 4) present the lessons learned from IMPACT in order to inform future collaborative studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(6):342–345

Fragility fractures are an emerging healthcare problem in Sub-Saharan Africa and hip fractures (HFs) are associated with high levels of morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare resources utilization, and mortality. The worldwide average healthcare cost in the first-year post HF was US$43,669 per patient in a 2017 systematic review, however there are no studies quantifying fracture-associated costs within SSA. We estimated direct healthcare costs of HF management in the South African public healthcare system. We conducted a prospective ingredients-based costing study in 200 consecutive consenting HF patients to estimate costs per patient across five regional public sector hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). Resource use including staff time, consumables, laboratory investigations, radiographs, operating theatre time, surgical implants, medicines, and inpatient days were collected from presentation to discharge. Counts of resources used were multiplied by relevant unit costs, estimated from KZN Department of Health hospital fees manual 2019/20, in local currency (South African Rand, ZAR). Generalised linear models were used to estimate total covariate adjusted costs and cost predictors. The mean unadjusted cost for HF management was ZAR114,179 (95% CI; ZAR105,468–125,335). The major cost driver was orthopaedics/surgical ward costs ZAR 106.68, contributing to 85% of total cost. The covariate adjusted cost for HF management was ZAR114,696 (95% CI; ZAR111,745–117,931). After covariate adjustment, total costs were higher in patients operated under general anaesthesia compared to surgery under spinal anaesthesia and no surgery. Direct healthcare costs following a HF are substantial: 58% of the gross domestic per capita (US$12,096 in 2020), and six-times greater than per capita spending on health (US$1,187 in 2019) in SA. As the population ages, this significant economic burden to the health system will increase. Further research is required to evaluate direct non-medical, and the indirect costs incurred post HF

Fragility fractures are skeletal complications associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) causing disability, hospitalization, impaired quality of life, and increased mortality. Increased circulating sclerostin and accumulation of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) are two potential mechanisms underlying low bone turnover and increased fracture risk. We have recently shown that T2D affects the expression of genes controlling bone formation (SOST and RUNX2) and that accumulation of AGEs is associated with impaired bone formation in T2D. We hypothesized that Wnt/B- catenin target genes are down-regulated in bone of T2D subjects as a consequence of decreased SOST and AGEs accumulation. To this end, we studied gene expression in extracts of bone samples obtained from femoral heads of 14 subjects with relatively well-controlled T2D (HbA1c 6.5±1.7%) and 21 control, non-diabetic postmenopausal women (age >65 years) undergoing hip replacement. There were no differences in age (73.2± .8 vs. 75.2±8.5 years) or BMI (27.7±5.6 vs. 29.9±5.4 kg/m2) between control and T2D groups, respectively. Expression of LEF1 mRNA was significantly lower in T2D compared to non-diabetic subjects (p=0.002), while DKK1 was not different between groups (p=0.108). Correlation analysis showed that DKK1 (r2=0.038; p=0.043) and HbA1c (r2=0.503; p=0.048) increased with age in T2D. COL1A1 mRNA trended lower in T2D compared to controls (p=0.056). Bone volume (9,333 ± 1,443 vs. 15,53 ± 2,442 mm2; p=0.048), mineralized volume (9,278 ± 1,418 vs. 15,45 ± 2,444 mm. 2. ; p=0.048) and BV/TV (0,2125 ± 0,03114 vs. 0,3719 ± 0,03196 %; p=0.002) measured by bone histomorphometry were lower in T2D compared to controls. Our data show that even in patients with relatively good glycemic control, T2D decreases expression of Wnt/B-catenin target genes andCOL1A1, associated with decreased bone density. These results may help understand the mechanisms underlying bone fragility in T2D

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

Fragility ankle fractures are traditionally managed conservatively or with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) fusion is an alternative option for the geriatric patient. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a detailed analysis of the functional and clinical outcomes of hindfoot nailing for fragility ankle fractures presented so far in the literature. A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, identifying fourteen studies for inclusion. Studies including patients over 60 with a fragility ankle fracture, treated with TTC nail were included. Patients with a previous fracture of the ipsilateral limb, fibular nails, and pathological fractures were excluded. Subgroup analyses were performed according to (1) open vs closed fractures, (2) immediate post-operative FWB vs post-operative NWB, (3) majority of cohort are diabetics vs minority of cohort are diabetics. Meta-regression analyses were done to explore sources of heterogeneity, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. The pooled proportion of superficial infection, deep infection, implant failure, malunion, and all-cause mortality was 0.10 (95%CI:0.06-0.16; I2=44%), 0.08 (95%CI:0.06-0.11, I2=0%), 0.11 (95%CI:0.07-0.15, I2=0%), 0.11 (95%CI:0.06-0.18; I2=51%), and 0.27 (95%CI:0.20-0.34; I2=11%), respectively. The pooled mean post-operative OMAS score was 54.07 (95%CI:48.98-59.16; I2=85%). The best-fitting meta-regression model included age and percentage of male patients as covariates (p=0.0263), and were inversely correlated with higher OMAS scores. Subgroup analyses showed that studies with a majority of diabetics had a higher proportion of implant failure (p=0.0340) and surgical infection (p=0.0096), and a lower chance of returning to pre-injury mobility than studies with a minority of diabetics (p=0.0385). Egger's test (p=0.56) showed no significant publication bias. TTC nailing is an adequate alternative option for fragility ankle fractures. However, current evidence includes mainly case series with inconsistent outcome measures reported and post-operative rehabilitation protocols. Prospective RCTs with long follow-up times and large cohort sizes are needed to clearly guide the use of TTC nailing for ankle fractures