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

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 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.

Abstract

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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND

Ideal treatment of displaced femoral neck fragility fractures in the previously ambulatory patient remains controversial. Treating these patients with total hip arthroplasty has improved patient reported outcomes and reduced rates of revision surgery compared to those treated with hemiarthroplasty. However, possible increased risk of dislocation remains a concern with total hip arthroplasty.

The anterolateral and direct anterior approaches to total hip replacement have been applied in the femoral neck fracture population to minimize dislocation rates. However, the anterolateral approach has been associated with abductor injury and increased rates of heterotopic ossification while the anterior approach has been associated with peri-prosthetic femur fracture, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury, and wound complications. The Supercapsular Percutaneously Assisted (SuperPATH) approach was developed to minimize disruption of the capsule and short-external rotators in an effort to reduce the risk of dislocation and assist in quicker recovery in the elective hip arthroplasty setting. To achieve this, the SuperPATH technique allows the femur to be prepared in situ and the acetabulum to be reamed percutaneously once the femoral head is removed.

This study investigates the post-operative time to ambulation, length of stay, discharge destination, and early dislocation rate of previously ambulatory patients with a displaced femoral neck fragility fracture that were treated with a total hip arthroplasty via the SuperPATH technique.

Purpose

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

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.

To discover whether orthopaedic surgeons follow the BOA guidelines for secondary prevention of fragility fractures, a retrospective audit on neck of femur fractures treated in our hospital in October/November 2003 was carried out. There were 27 patients. Twenty-six patients (96%) had full blood count measured. LFT and bone-profile were measured in 18 patients (66%). Only nine patients (30%) had treatment for osteoporosis (calcium and vitamin D). Only one patient was referred for DEXA scan.

Steps were taken to create better awareness of the BOA guidelines among junior doctors and nurse practitioners. In patients above 80 years of age it was decided to use abbreviated mental score above 7 as a clinical criterion for DEXA referral. A hospital protocol based on BOA guidelines was made.

A re-audit was conducted during the period August-October 2004, with 37 patients. All of them had their full blood count and renal profile checked (100%). The bone-profile was measured in 28 (75.7%) and LFT in 34 (91.9%) patients. Twenty-four patients (65%) received treatment in the form of calcium + Vit D (20) and bisphosphonate (4). DEXA scan referral was not indicated in 14 patients as 4 of them were already on bisphosphonates and 10 patients had an abbreviated mental score of less than 7. Among the remaining 23 patients, nine (40%) were referred for DEXA scan. This improvement is statistically significant (p=0.03, chi square test).

The re-audit shows that, although there is an improvement in the situation, we are still below the standards of secondary prevention of fragility fractures with 60% of femoral fragility fracture patients not being referred for DEXA scan. A pathway lead by a fracture liaison nurse dedicated to osteoporotic fracture patients should improve the situation.

Treat to target is the use of a physiologic marker as a monitor of effectiveness or compliance to an intervention. A recent example has been the progressive use of CTX-1 (Marker of osteoclastic activity) as a surrogate of bone resorptive activity in osteoporosis treatment. CTX-1 levels were demonstrated to be inversely related to drug efficacy in the suppression of bone resorption. As far as fragility fractures are concerned, no reference value of CTX-1 for any index fracture sites was found in the literature. In order to prevent subsequent fractures, efforts to better manage this chronic disease are to be explored. The main objective of this study was to compare and validate the use of serum CTX-1 to the perceived compliance to treatment.

Five hundred and forty three patients (men and women) 40 years of age or older who had been treated for a fragility fracture were enrolled. The purpose of this study was to correlate the measurement of CTX-1 with the perceived compliance to treatment of patients at the time of fracture and at six, 12 and 18 months after initiation of treatment. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate two different CTX-1 suppression target levels (CTX-1< 0.3 ng/mL and CTX-1<0.2 ng/mL), to determine CTX-1 values according to fracture sites, and to explore the profile of patients with subsequent fractures.

Considering index fractures, compliant patients under treatment at baseline had lower CTX-1 levels than non-compliant patients (p=0.052). Patients who were compliant to treatment at six, 12 and 18 months also had lower CTX-1 levels than non-compliant patients (p=0.000). When index fractures were divided into fracture sites, regardless of CTX-1 suppression target level (i.e. CTX-1< 0.3 or 0.2 ng/mL), significant CTX-1 suppression was observed in non-hip and non-vertebral (NHNV) fractures at six, 12 and 18 months (p0.05). No clinically relevant difference was observed between the profile of patients with and without subsequent fractures.

The correlation between serum CTX-1 at the time of fracture and at six, 12, 18 months and the perceived compliance to treatment was validated for NHNV fractures supporting the concept of the available treatments and their effects on bone remodeling for this type of fracture. The correlation was not validated for hip neither for vertebral fracture. There was no correlation between CTX-1 levels and subsequent fracture risk.

Introduction

The classical Colles fracture (extraarticular, dorsally angulated distal radius fracture) in patients with osteoporotic bone is becoming increasingly more frequent. There still appears to be no clear consensus on the most appropriate surgical management of these injuries. The purpose of this study is to appraise the use of percutaneous extra-focal pinning, in the management of the classical colles fracture.

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

Aims

Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice.

Aims

This study aims to define the epidemiology of trauma presenting to a single centre providing all orthopaedic trauma care for a population of ∼ 900,000 over the first 40 days of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that presenting over the same period one year earlier. The secondary aim was to compare this with population mobility data obtained from Google.

Aims

The current global pandemic due to COVID-19 is generating significant burden on the health service in the UK. On 23 March 2020, the UK government issued requirements for a national lockdown. The aim of this multicentre study is to gain a greater understanding of the impact lockdown has had on the rates, mechanisms and types of injuries together with their management across a regional trauma service.

Osteoporosis is common and the health and financial cost of fragility fractures is considerable. The burden of cardiovascular disease has been reduced dramatically by identifying and targeting those most at risk. A similar approach is potentially possible in the context of fragility fractures. The World Health Organization created and endorsed the use of FRAX, a fracture risk assessment tool, which uses selected risk factors to calculate a quantitative, patient-specific, ten-year risk of sustaining a fragility fracture. Treatment can thus be based on this as well as on measured bone mineral density. It may also be used to determine at-risk individuals, who should undergo bone densitometry. FRAX has been incorporated into the national osteoporosis guidelines of countries in the Americas, Europe, the Far East and Australasia. The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also advocates its use in their guidance on the assessment of the risk of fragility fracture, and it may become an important tool to combat the health challenges posed by fragility fractures.