Ability of a Risk Prediction Tool to Stratify Quality and Cost for Older Patients With Operative Distal Radius Fractures

Abstract

Introduction:

Distal radius fractures are the second most common fracture in the elderly population. The incidence of these fractures has increased over time, and is projected to continue to do so. The aim of this study is to utilize a validated trauma risk prediction tool to stratify middle-aged and geriatric patients with operative distal radius fractures as well as compare hospital quality metrics and inpatient hospitalization costs among the risk groups.

Materials and Methods:

Patients were prospectively enrolled in an orthopedic trauma registry. The Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and Middle Aged (STTGMA) was calculated using patient demographics, injury severity, and functional status. Patients were then stratified into minimal-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk cohorts based on their scores. Length of stay, need for escalation of care, complications, mortality, discharge location, 1-year patient reported outcomes, and index admission costs were evaluated.

Results:

Ninety-two patients met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (68.5%) patients were managed with outpatient surgery. The mean inpatient length of stay for the high-risk cohort was 2.9x and 2.2x higher than the minimal and moderate-risk cohorts, respectively (2.0 + 2.9 days vs. 0.7 + 0.9 and 0.9 + 1.1 days, P = .019). There were no complications or mortality in any of the risk groups. No patients required intensive care and all patients were discharged home. There was no difference in readmission rates, inpatient cost, or 1-year patient reported outcomes among the risk cohorts.

Discussion/Conclusions:

The Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and Middle-Aged is able to risk-stratify patients that undergo operative intervention of distal radius fractures. Middle aged and elderly patients with isolated closed distal radius fractures can be safely managed on an outpatient basis regardless of risk. Standardized pathways can be created in the management of these injuries, thereby optimizing value-based care.

Level of evidence:

Prognostic Level III

Keywords

distal radius fractures risk stratification triage geriatric hospital quality measures

Introduction

Distal radius fractures are the second most common fracture in the elderly population, accounting for 18% of all fractures in patients over 65 years old.^1

-5 They are more common in women likely due to the increased incidence of osteoporosis, and most commonly occur after a low energy fall from standing height.^1,3,4,6
-8

The incidence of distal radius fractures has increased over time,^3,9,10 and it is predicted that it will continue to do so as people live longer, healthier, and more active lives.^3,8,11 In elderly patients, distal radius fractures are commonly managed with closed reduction and casting; however, there has been an increasing trend of operative intervention with internal fixation over the years.^3,4,12 Management of this injury in the aging population leaves a substantial financial footprint on the healthcare system.^3,11

-16 In 2007 for example, Medicare made $170 million worth of payments in distal radius fracture-related cases.^12,14 Given the predicted exponential growth of the elderly population in the coming decades, the high incidence of distal radius fractures as well as the increasing trend of operative intervention in this population, the economic impact of these injuries is expected to grow substantially.

The transition to bundled payment models in lieu of fee-for-service models in the field of orthopedic trauma surgery has led to the necessity of cost optimization strategies in order to provide value-based care. Outcome-driven stratification of patients can assist providers in achieving this goal. Studies have assessed the outcomes and costs of distal radius fracture management relative to the type of operative intervention, implants, facility, and post-injury management.^17

-23 However, there is a paucity of literature that risk stratifies patients and evaluates outcomes and costs relative to risk group. Given that middle-aged and geriatric patients are more likely to have expensive hospitalizations owing to increased admissions, longer length of stays, and more complications,^24,25 risk stratification on admission can aid physicians in counseling patients regarding outcomes and improve resource allocation.

The primary objectives of this study are to stratify middle-aged and geriatric patients with distal radius fractures that require operative intervention using a validated trauma risk prediction tool and compare hospital quality metrics and inpatient hospitalization costs among the risk groups.

Materials and Methods

Patients age 55 and older who presented to the emergency department of an urban, academic level I trauma center, a tertiary care academic medical center, and an orthopedic specialty hospital after sustaining a distal radius fracture (OTA 2R3-A/B/C) between October 2014 and August 2018 were queried from an IRB-approved retrospective geriatric database. Patients who subsequently underwent operative fixation during index hospitalization or up to 20 days post-injury, met inclusion criteria for this study. Information regarding emergency department (ED) presentation and subsequent hospitalization was captured in electronic medical records. Patients with concomitant peripheral or axial skeletal fractures were excluded. Upon arrival to the ED, index data such as patient age, race, and comorbidities were gathered. Patients were further assessed with the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Abbreviated Injury Severity (AIS) scores for the head and neck (AIS-HN), chest (AIS-C), and pelvis and extremity (AIS-EXT). The American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification system (ASA), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and ambulatory status were used to assess health and functional status prior to injury. Injury mechanism was also documented. Low-energy mechanisms of injury were defined as a fall from standing or a fall down less than 2 stairs. High-energy mechanisms of injury included falls from a height greater than 2 stairs, motor vehicle and motorcycle accidents, assault, and pedestrians struck by motor vehicles or motorcycles. These variables were then used to calculate the Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle Aged (STTGMA) for each patient, representing their risk of inpatient mortality on a scale of 0-100%.²⁶ We then stratified patients into tertiles based on their risk profiles: minimal risk (<0.08%), moderate risk (0.081-0.12%), and high risk (>0.13%).

During index hospitalization, information regarding mortality, complication rates, length of stay (LOS), need for intensive care unit (ICU) and step-down unit (SDU)-level care, and discharge location was gathered. Complications assessed were divided into major and minor categories. Minor complications included acute renal failure, surgical site infections, decubitus ulcers, urinary tract infections, and acute anemia. Major complications included sepsis, pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest, stroke, and inpatient mortality. Thirty and 90-day readmission and mortality within 30 days of discharge were evaluated. Direct variable cost data was obtained from the hospital finance department and subdivided into room/board, ED, pharmacy, laboratory/pathology, radiology, dialysis, cardiology, procedure, allied health costs, and others (e.g. blood products). Patients were prospectively followed up to 1 year or greater, at which time their functional outcomes were collected using the EQ-5D-3 L questionnaire. All data was collected via phone interviews using phone numbers collected on index presentation. The EQ-5D-3 L index score consists of 5 dimensions, rated from 1 to 3, for mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Higher EQ 5-D index scores denote better function. EQ-5D indices were calculated using the Crosswalk Index Value Calculator provided by the EQ-5D website. (Euroqol.org; Rotterdam, Netherlands).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-squared tests were utilized to determine differences between the risk groups with P < .05 considered significant. Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS software. (Version 24; Chicago, IL).

Results

Of the 544 consecutive patients who sustained an isolated, unilateral distal radius fracture, 92 (16.9%) patients underwent operative fixation and were included in the analysis. Thirty-one (33.7%) patients were determined to be minimal risk, 31 (33.7%) were moderate risk, and 30 (32.6%) were high risk. The mean patient age was 67.1 years old ± 7.9 years (Table 1). Eighty-two (89.1%) patients experienced low-energy injuries and 10 (10.9%) experienced high-energy injuries. Sixty-three (68.5%) patients were managed with outpatient surgery and 29 (31.5%) were managed with surgery during the index admission. Of the 29 patients that had inpatient surgeries, 16 (55.2%) of the admissions were due to patient preference for early management, 12 (41.4%) were due to open fractures, and 1 (3.4%) was due to the patient being admitted to a non-orthopedic service for management (Table 2). The mean GCS of the entire cohort was 14.99 ± 0.1. The mean AIS scores were: 0.09 ± 0.35 for AIS-HN, 0.01 ± 0.1 for AIS-C, and 3.1 ± 0.3 for AIS-EXT. The mean CCI was 0.35 ± 0.72 with 76% of patients, including all of the minimal-risk cohort, having a CCI of 0. The mean ASA score was 2.1 ± 0.61. All patients were community ambulators. Patients in the high-risk cohort had higher AIS-HN, ASA, and CCI scores (Table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients.

	Minimal risk(n = 31)	Moderate risk (n = 31)	High risk (n = 30)	P
Age (y) (mean ± SD)	60.9 ± 3.6	70.5 ± 6.1	70.1 ± 9.0	<.001
Female Sex (N, %)	26 (83.9%)	29 (93.5%)	22 (77.3%)	.102
GCS (mean ± SD)	15.0 ± 0.0	15.0 ± 0.0	14.97 ± 0.2	.360
AIS-HN (mean ± SD)	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0	0.3 ± 0.6	.002
AIS-C (mean ± SD)	0.0 ± 0.0	0.03 ± 0.2	0.0 ± 0.0	.378
AIS-EXT (mean ± SD)	3.1 ± 0.3	3.0 ± 0.2	3.2 ± 0.4	.066
CCI (mean ± SD)	0.0 ± 0.0	0.1 ± 0.3	0.9 ± 1.0	<.001
STTGMA (%) (mean ± SD)	0.07 ± 0.0	0.1 ± 0.0	0.3 ± 0.1	<.001
ASA Score	1.8 ± 0.5	2.1 ± 0.6	2.3 ± 0.6	.005

GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS); AIS-HN = Abbreviated Injury Severity scores for the head and neck; AIS-C = Abbreviated Injury Severity scores for the chest; AIS-EXT = Abbreviated Injury Severity scores for the pelvis and extremity; ASA = The American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification system; CCI = Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Bolded p values are statistically significant.

Table 2.

Injury Characteristics.

Characteristic		Number	Percent
Total		92	100
OTA Classification
	2R3 A	1	1.1
	2R3 B	12	13
	2R3 C	79	85.9
Fracture Type
	Open	12	13
	Closed	80	87
Energy Mechanism
	High	10	10.9
	Low	82	89.1
Treatment Location
	Inpatient	29	31.5
	Outpatient	63	68.5

The mean LOS for the entire cohort was 1.2 ± 1.9 days, with the high-risk group having a 2-fold increase in duration of stay compared to the moderate and minimal risk groups. Patients in the minimal risk cohort had a mean LOS of 0.9 + 1.1 days compared with 0.7 + 0.9 in the moderate risk group, and 2.0 + 2.9 in the high-risk cohort (P = .019). No patients in any risk group required ICU/SDU level care. Additionally, no patients experienced any minor or major inpatient complications, nor was there any inpatient mortality. All patients were discharged home, without requiring admission to a skilled nursing facility or subacute rehabilitation center. There was no difference between the groups in regard to 30 or 90-day readmissions. One-year patient reported outcomes could only be obtained for one third of the patients (9 in the minimal risk, 13 in moderate risk, and 9 in high risk cohorts). No difference between the EQ-5D indices across the groups was noted (P = .809) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Hospital Quality Metrics Across Tertiles.

	Minimal risk (n = 31)	Moderate risk (n = 31)	High risk (n = 30)	P-Value
Admitted to the hospital (N, %)	10 (32.3%)	7 (22.6%)	15 (50%)	.075
Length of Stay (days)	0.9 + 1.1	0.7 + 0.9	2.0 + 2.9	.019
Discharge destination other than home	0	0	0	--
Inpatient Complications	0	0	0	--
Inpatient Mortality	0	0	0	--
30-day Mortality	0	0	0	--
30-Day Readmission (N, %)	12 (38.7%)	15 (48.4%)	12 (40%)	.705
90-Day Readmission (N, %)	11 (35.5%)	13 (41.9%)	7 (23.3%)	.297
EQ-5D Score	0.86 + 0.20	0.90 + 0.10	0.88 + 0.09	.809

Bolded p values are statistically significant.

Cost data was available for 34 patients (36.9%) and extrapolated to fit the total patient population. Of the 34 patients, 23 patients were admitted from the ED and underwent surgery during inpatient admission, whereas 11 patients were managed with outpatient surgery. The mean total inpatient admission costs for the high-risk cohort was $3000 higher than the minimal and moderate risk cohorts; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance (minimal-risk $14,225 ± $2,637, moderate-risk $15,183 ± 3,245, and high-risk $17,483 ± 9,981, P = .501). Cost subdivision analysis including room and board, pharmacy, laboratory and pathology, and radiology and cardiology costs did not reveal any differences among groups (Table 4).

Table 4.

Index Admission Costs of Care of the Minimal, Moderate, and High-Risk Cohorts.

	Minimal risk (n = 10)	Moderate risk (n = 9)	High risk (n = 15)	P
Total ($) (mean ± SD)	14,225 ± 2,637	15,183 ± 3,245	17,483 ± 9,981	.501
Room/Board ($) (mean ± SD)	2,022 ± 1,469	1,718 ± 1,267	2,896 ± 2,977	.415
ED ($) (mean ± SD)	584 ± 443	646 ± 399	732 ± 515	.735
Pharm ($) (mean ± SD)	165 ± 97	294 ± 250	343 ± 322	.244
Lab/Path ($) (mean ± SD)	106 ± 55	100 ± 73	158 ± 119	.238
Radiology ($) (mean ± SD)	1,076 ± 280	1,4644 ± 188	1,530 ± 797	.142
Dialysis ($) (mean ± SD)	0 ± 0	0 ± 0	0 ± 0	--
Cardio ($) (mean ± SD)	61 ± 91	37 ± 35	90 ± 134	.481
Procedures ($) (mean ± SD)	9,313 ± 2,359	10,202 ± 3,363	11,057 ± 6,356	.671
Allied Health ($) (mean ± SD)	72 ± 88	58 ± 75	160 ± 445	.669
Other ($) (mean ± SD)	826 ± 465	666 ± 285	518 ± 219	.081

Discussion

This study demonstrates the capacity of a trauma triage score to risk stratify elderly and middle-aged patients, as well as evaluate the relationship between risk cohorts and patient demographics, hospital quality measures and costs. Patients in the high-risk cohort were found to have longer length of stays. Although the hospitalization costs for the high-risk cohort were higher, the differences were not statistically significant.

STTGMA

At its inception, the STTGMA was intended to predict inpatient mortality risk.^26,27 This risk assessment tool considers various patient factors, such as age, medical comorbidities, and injury severity, that have been shown to affect outcomes in the middle-aged and geriatric populations.^26

-30 Its use as a tool for prompt triage analysis of patients evaluated in the emergency room has been validated by the National Trauma Databank as well as prospectively at our Level I Trauma center.^26,27,31,32 The risk stratification provided by this score can aid provider decision making in order to personalize care for patients prior to admission.

The STTGMA has also been used in the evaluation of hospital quality metrics, inpatient costs, and patient outcomes.^31,33 For example, among middle-aged and elderly patients with ankle fractures, those identified as high risk were more likely to need an escalated level of inpatient care, had more complications, readmissions, and longer more expensive hospitalizations. They were also more likely to be discharged to rehab facilities or nursing homes.^34,35 Similar findings have been noted in patients with tibial plateau and tibial shaft fractures.³⁶

Distal Radius Fractures

Distal radius fractures are common in the middle-aged and elderly population. The incidence of this injury has increased over time and is predicted to continue to rise with the exponential growth of the elderly population.^3,9
-11

Patient outcomes

Patient healthcare resource utilization and outcomes after injuries like distal radius fractures can be predicted by patient factors such as frailty.^{27,29,37

-40} Frailty can be inferred from the STTGMA due to the its inclusion of pre-hospitalization ambulatory status and the Charlson Comorbidity Index; which has been shown to be comparable to the modified frailty index (mFI), a 5-item score based on patient comorbidities, in predicting mortality in surgical patients.³⁸ Wilson et al use the mFI, to evaluate the impact of frailty on outcomes in patients over age 50 that underwent operative management of distal radius fractures.³⁷ Patients with mFI scores 2 were more likely to have postoperative complications, increased length of stay and readmission rates, and less likely to be discharged home. Notably, age alone was not predictive of these outcomes.³⁷ These results are consistent with our finding of the high-risk cohort having a longer length of stay compared to the minimal and moderate risk cohorts. Though the mean length of stay was less than 2 days in both our study and the Wilson et al study, other studies have demonstrated inpatient hospitalizations of up to 9 days after operative management of distal radius fractures in this population.^41,42 Prolonged hospitalization is often attributable to a lack of appropriate home care.⁴¹

Additionally, although patients are more likely able to be discharged home both after initial injury and definitive management, these injuries still significantly alter patient quality of life.^12,14,20,42 In this study, patient reported outcome scores were high, with no significant differences noted between the risk cohorts. It is probable that most patients had returned to near-baseline function given that distal radius fractures are typically healed by 1 year. However, in the initial injury and postoperative period, patients often experience a loss of independence as they struggle to perform activities of daily living, with more pronounced limitations in the elderly population.^12,14,20 Though not observed in our sample size, these patients at times require admission to rehabilitation facilities.⁴³ Risks include age greater than or equal to 80, multiple fractures, living in a private home prior to admission, and operative intervention.⁴³ Risk stratification assists in identifying patients that would benefit from preemptive planning of discharge disposition, including the provision of home health services, at the time of admission, therefore shortening length of stay and optimizing costs.

Prior studies evaluating patient risk stratification with the STTGMA have identified minimal risk groups as having scores <0.6% and <0.45% for ankle and tibia fractures respectively. In this study, the high-risk group included patients with scores >0.13%. Therefore, most of the patients in this study can likely be deemed minimal risk despite increased age, AIS, CCI, and ASA scores. Taken with the high percentage of outpatient surgeries, in addition to patient preference as the reason for the majority of admissions for inpatient surgery noted in this study, the data suggests that isolated closed distal radius fractures in middle aged and elderly patients can be safely managed on an outpatient basis, even in higher risk patients, depending on the presence of concomitant visceral organ or head injuries. It should also be noted that patient preference for inpatient admission is possibly due to social factors (e.g. lack of social and physical support at home) and that the admissions and length of stay recorded in this study likely reflect social factors that are prevalent in similar demographic patient populations in urban centers.

Health care costs

Although a significant difference in costs between risk groups was not demonstrated in this study, distal radius fractures still confer significant costs to the healthcare system.³

The increasing rate of operative intervention alone may result in Medicare spending up to $240 million annually in the future.^{3,4,12,14,44
-46} The lack of standardized care, for example with protocolized outpatient follow-up, likely contributes to costs.¹⁶ Shah et al conducted a study that evaluated physical and occupational therapy utilization after common hand procedures, including operative management of distal radius fractures, over a 7-year period.¹⁷ They observed substantial geographical variation in utilization rates and an increase in the use of these services over time.¹⁷ Standardizing postoperative care would reduce unwarranted clinic visits and other services, ultimately optimizing costs. Giladi et al demonstrate improved outcomes with significantly less total direct costs when appropriate care was provided for distal radius fractures according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines.⁴⁷ Implant selection can also be considered, as they are another cost driver that the operating surgeon can control.²³ Additionally, these surgeries should be performed at ambulatory surgical facilities when possible, as they have been shown to have lower mean operative costs per case compared to inpatient facilities.²¹

The field of orthopedic trauma surgery is not immune to the increasing popularity of a fixed payment per episode care model. Healthcare costs for musculoskeletal care in patients 65 years old nearly doubled from 1996 to 2011, while reimbursements for orthopedic procedures have decreased.^48,49 Therefore, the importance of value-based care initiatives in this climate cannot be overstated. In addition to efforts to prevent these injuries, as well as standardization of care through pathways created to eliminate waste; the identification of high resource utilization patients, such as with the risk stratification offered by the STTGMA, is pivotal.

Limitations/Future Directions

This study has limitations. Despite the observation of patients over a 4-year period, the sample size was small, likely due to the fact that nonoperative management remains the most common management of these injuries in this population. Also, we did not evaluate the complications managed in the outpatient setting, therefore the lack of complications observed in this study is not reflective of patient outcomes in the general population. Lastly, the 1-year patient reported outcomes and cost data could only be obtained for one third of the sample size. The former is due to patients being lost to follow up. This is likely owing to the fact that patients with these injuries are typically considered healed within 3 to 6 months of surgery, which would give them less incentive to follow up. The latter is due to administrative restrictions preventing the procurement of financial data from the tertiary care academic hospital. Given that more patients had inpatient surgery in the group for which cost data was attained compared to the total cohort it is possible that the cost analysis is not representative of the general population. A multi-center study evaluating these outcomes would likely have an increased sample size and provide further insight on this topic.

Conclusion

The Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and Middle-Aged is able to risk-stratify patients that undergo operative intervention of distal radius fractures. Middle aged and elderly patients with isolated closed distal radius fractures can be safely managed on an outpatient basis regardless of risk grouping, but safe outpatient management depends on the presence of concomitant visceral organ or head injuries that may require inpatient hospitalization. Standardized pathways can be created in the management of these injuries to optimize value-based care.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Abidemi Adenikinju, MD

References

Shauver

Zhong

Chung

. Mortality after distal radial fractures in the Medicare population. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015;40(8):805–811. doi:10.1177/1753193415589735

Baron

Karagas

Barrett

, et al. Basic epidemiology of fractures of the upper and lower limb among Americans over 65 years of age. Epidemiology. 1996;7(6):612–618. doi:10.1097/00001648-199611000-00008

Nellans

Kowalski

Chung

. The epidemiology of distal radius fractures. Hand Clin. 2012;28(2):113–125. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2012.02.001

Azad

Kang

Alluri

Vakhshori

Kay

Ghiassi

. Epidemiological and treatment trends of distal radius fractures across multiple age groups. J Wrist Surg. 2019;8(4):305–311. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1685205

Larsen

Lauritsen

. Epidemiology of acute wrist trauma. Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22(5):911–916. Accessed May 16, 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8282472

Harness

Funahashi

Dell

, et al. Distal radius fracture risk reduction with a comprehensive osteoporosis management program. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(8):1543–1549. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.04.033

Orces

. Emergency department visits for fall-related fractures among older adults in the USA: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the national electronic injury surveillance system all injury program, 2001-2008. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001722

Jupiter

. Future treatment and research directions in distal radius fracture. Hand Clin. 2012;28(2):245–248. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2012.02.006

Melton

Amadio

Crowson

O’Fallon

. Long-term trends in the incidence of distal forearm fractures. Osteoporos Int. 1998;8(4):341–348. doi:10.1007/s001980050073

10.

Hagino

Yamamoto

Ohshiro

Nakamura

Kishimoto

Nose

. Changing incidence of hip, distal radius, and proximal humerus fractures in Tottori Prefecture, Japan. Bone. 1999;24(3):265–270. doi:10.1016/S8756-3282(98)00175-6

11.

Friedman

Mendelson

. Epidemiology of fragility fractures. Clin Geriatr Med. 2014;30(2):175–181. doi:10.1016/j.cger.2014.01.001

12.

Porrino

Maloney

Scherer

Mulcahy

Allan

. Fracture of the distal radius: epidemiology and premanagement radiographic characterization. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(3):551–559. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.12140

13.

Fanuele

Koval

Lurie

Zhou

Tosteson

Ring

. Distal radial fracture treatment: what you get may depend on your age and address. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A. 2009;91(6):1313–1319. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00448

14.

Shauver

Yin

Banerjee

Chung

. Current and future national costs to Medicare for the treatment of distal radius fracture in the elderly. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(8):1282–1287. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.05.017

15.

Chung

Spilson

. The frequency and epidemiology of hand and forearm fractures in the United States. J Hand Surg Am. 2001;26(5):908–915. doi:10.1053/jhsu.2001.26322

16.

Kakarlapudi

Santini

Shahane

Douglas

. The cost of treatment of distal radial fractures. Injury. 2000;31(4):229–232. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(99)00248-X

17.

Shah

Zhang

Baker

Sox-Harris

Kamal

. Physical and occupational therapy use and cost after common hand procedures. J Hand Surg Am. 2020;45(4):289–297.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.09.008

18.

Nandyala

S V.

Giladi

Parker

Rozental

. Comparison of direct perioperative costs in treatment of unstable distal radial fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus closed reduction and percutaneous pinning. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 2018;100(9):786–792. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00688

19.

Tubeuf

Achten

, et al. Cost effectiveness of treatment with percutaneous Kirschner wires versus volar locking plate for adult patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius: analysis from the DRAFFT trial. Bone Jt J. 2015;97-B(8):1082–1089. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35234

20.

Sabesan

Valikodath

Childs

Sharma

. Economic and social impact of upper extremity fragility fractures in elderly patients. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27(4):539–546. doi:10.1007/s40520-014-0295-y

21.

Mather

Wysocki

MacK Aldridge

Pietrobon

Nunley

. Effect of facility on the operative costs of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(7):1142–1148. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.03.042

22.

Rajan

Qudsi

Dyer

GSM

Losina

. The cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation of distal radial fractures. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 2018;100(3):e13. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00181

23.

Bhat

Liss

Beredjiklian

. Economic analysis of the cost of implants used for treatment of distal radius fractures. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018;6(5):371.

24.

Taylor

Tracy

Meyer

Pasquale

Napolitano

. Trauma in the elderly: intensive care unit resource use and outcome. J Trauma. 2002;53(3):407–414. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. doi:10.1097/00005373-200209000-00001

25.

Rau

Lin

, et al. Geriatric hospitalizations in fall-related injuries. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014;22(1):63. doi:10.1186/s13049-014-0063-1

26.

Konda

Seymour

Manoli

Gales

Karunakar

; Carolinas Trauma Network Research Group. Development of a middle-age and geriatric trauma mortality risk score a tool to guide palliative care consultations. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2016;74(4):298–305.

27.

Konda

Lott

Saleh

Schubl

Chan

Egol

. How does frailty factor into mortality risk assessment of a middle-aged and geriatric trauma population? Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2017;8(4):225–230. doi:10.1177/2151458517735202

28.

Earl-Royal

Kaufman

Hsu

Wiebe

Reilly

Holena

. Age and preexisting conditions as risk factors for severe adverse events and failure to rescue after injury. J Surg Res. 2016;205(2):368–377. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.082

29.

Maxwell

Mion

Mukherjee

, et al. Preinjury physical frailty and cognitive impairment among geriatric trauma patients determine postinjury functional recovery and survival. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(2):195–203. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000929

30.

Hwabejire

Kaafarani

HMA

Lee

, et al. Patterns of injury, outcomes, and predictors of in-hospital and 1-year mortality in nonagenarian and centenarian trauma patients. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(10):1054–1059. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.473

31.

Konda

Lott

Egol

. Development of a value-based algorithm for inpatient triage of elderly hip fracture patients. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(13):e566–e572. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-18-00400

32.

Konda

Lott

Saleh

Gales

Egol

. Use of the STTGMA tool to risk stratify 1-year functional outcomes and mortality in geriatric trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(9):461–466. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001242

33.

Konda

Lott

Saleh

Lyon

Egol

. Measures, using trauma triage score to risk-stratify inpatient triage, hospital quality and cost in middle-aged and geriatric orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(10):525–530. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001561

34.

Lott

Egol

Lyon

Konda

. Ability of a risk prediction tool to stratify quality and cost for older patients with operative ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(6):312–317. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001446

35.

Simske

Benedick

Kavanagh

Vallier

. Predicting length of stay and readmissions after ankle fracture using a risk stratification tool (STTGMA). J Orthop Trauma. 2020;34(11):1. doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000001788

36.

Konda

Dedhia

Ganta

Egol

. Ability of a risk prediction tool to stratify quality and cost for older patients with tibial shaft and plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2020;34(10):539–544. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001791

37.

Wilson

Holzgrefe

Staley

Schenker

Meals

. Use of a 5-item modified frailty index for risk stratification in patients undergoing surgical management of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(8):701–709. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.05.029

38.

Bateni

Bold

Meyers

Canter

. Comparison of common risk stratification indices to predict outcomes among stage IV cancer patients with bowel obstruction undergoing surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(3):479–487. doi:10.1002/jso.24866

39.

Ondeck

Bohl

Bovonratwet

, et al. Predicting adverse outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Class, the Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index, and The Modified Frailty Index. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26(20):735–743. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00009

40.

Ondeck

Nwachukwu

, et al.

What associations exist between comorbidity indices and postoperative adverse events after total shoulder arthroplasty?

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477(4):881–890. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000000624

41.

Aigner

Debus

Karaman

López-López

Ruchholtz

Kühne

. Ergebnisse der operativen Versorgung distaler Radiusfrakturen—eine Analyse von 721 Patienten. Z Orthop Unfall. 2014;152(4):375–380. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1368633

42.

Smektala

Endres

Dasch

Bonnaire

Trampisch

Pientka

Quality of care after distal radius fracture in Germany. Results of a fracture register of 1,201 elderly patients [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 2009;112(1):46–54. doi:10.1007/s00113-008-1523-8

43.

Lübbeke

Stern

Grab

Herrmann

Michel

Hoffmeyer

Upper extremity fractures in the elderly: consequences on utilization of rehabilitation care. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005;17(4):276–280. doi:10.1007/BF03324610

44.

Chen

Jupiter

. Management of distal radial fractures. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A. 2007;89(9):2051–2062. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00020

45.

Kreder

Agel

McKee

Schemitsch

Stephen

Hanel

. A randomized, controlled trial of distal radius fractures with metaphyseal displacement but without joint incongruity: closed reduction and casting versus closed reduction, spanning external fixation, and optional percutaneous K-wires. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(2):115–121. doi:10.1097/01.bot.0000199121.84100.fb

46.

Grewal

Perey

Wilmink

Stothers

. A randomized prospective study on the treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures: open reduction and internal fixation with dorsal plating versus mini open reduction, percutaneous fixation, and external fixation. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30(4):764–772. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2005.04.019

47.

Giladi

Giberson-Chen

Parker

Desale

Rozental

. Adhering to radiographic clinical practice guidelines for distal radial fracture management is associated with improved outcomes and lower costs. J Bone Jt Surg-Am Vol. 2019;101(20):1829–1837. doi:10.2106/JBJS.18.01245

48.

BMUS. The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States | prevalence, societal and economic cost. 2014. Accessed May 22, 2020. https://www.boneandjointburden.org/.

49.

Eltorai

AEM

Durand

Haglin

Rubin

Weiss

APC

Daniels

. Trends in Medicare reimbursement for orthopedic procedures: 2000 to 2016. Orthopedics. 2018;41(2):95–102. doi:10.3928/01477447-20180226-04