The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) was developed to assess the risk of death following a fracture of the hip, based on pre-operative patient characteristics. We performed an independent validation of the NHFS, assessed the degree of geographical variation that exists between different units within the United Kingdom and attempted to define a NHFS level that is associated with high risk of mortality.

The NHFS was calculated retrospectively for consecutive patients presenting with a fracture of the hip to two hospitals in England. The observed 30-day mortality for each NHFS cohort was compared with that predicted by the NHFS using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. The distribution of NHFS in the observed group was compared with data from other hospitals in the United Kingdom. The proportion of patients identified as high risk and the mortality within the high risk group were assessed for groups defined using different thresholds for the NHFS.

In all 1079 hip fractures were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 83 years (60 to 105), 284 (26%) male. Overall 30-day mortality was 7.3%. The NHFS was a significant predictor of 30-day mortality. Statistically significant differences in the distribution of the NHFS were present between different units in England (p < 0.001). A NHFS ≥ 6 appears to be an appropriate cut-point to identify patients at high risk of mortality following a fracture of the hip.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;96-B:100–3.

Aims

We aimed to determine whether there is evidence of improved patient outcomes in Major Trauma Centres following the regionalisation of trauma care in England.

Low-energy fractures of the proximal humerus indicate osteoporosis and it is important to direct treatment to this group of patients who are at high risk of further fracture. Data were prospectively collected from 79 patients (11 men, 68 women) with a mean age of 69 years (55 to 86) with fractures of the proximal humerus in order to determine if current guidelines on the measurement of the bone mineral density at the hip and lumbar spine were adequate to stratify the risk and to guide the treatment of osteoporosis. Bone mineral density measurements were made by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the proximal femur, lumbar spine (L2-4) and contralateral distal radius, and the T-scores were generated for comparison. Data were also collected on the use of steroids, smoking, the use of alcohol, hand dominance and comorbidity.

The mean T-score for the distal radius was −2.97 (sd 1.56) compared with −1.61 (sd 1.62) for the lumbar spine and −1.78 (sd 1.33) for the femur. There was a significant difference between the mean lumbar and radial T scores (1.36 (1.03 to 1.68); p < 0.001) and between the mean femoral and radial T-scores (1.18 (0.92 to 1.44); p < 0.001). The inclusion of all three sites in the determination of the T-score increased the sensitivity to 66% compared with that of 46% when only the proximal femur and lumbar spine were used. This difference between measurements in the upper limb compared with the axial skeleton and lower limb suggests that basing risk assessment and treatment on only the bone mineral density taken at the hip or lumbar spine may misrepresent the extent of osteoporosis in the upper limb and the subsequent risk of fracture at this site.

The assessment of osteoporosis must include measurement of the bone mineral density at the distal radius to avoid underestimation of osteoporosis in the upper limb.