The Second Hip Fracture is not an Independent Predictor of Poor Outcomes in Elderly Patients

Abstract

Introduction

Hip fracture is particularly seen in elderly patients with frailty and osteoporosis and leads to diminished functional independence and quality of life. Despite the susceptibility of these patients to a second hip fracture (SHF), the literature insufficiently discussed its impact leading to poor outcomes. This study aims to directly assess the outcomes of elderly patients with initial hip fractures (IHF) vs those experiencing an SHF within a well-matched group with similar characteristics.

Materials and Methods

This case–control study gathered data from the clinical hip fracture registry at a medical center from 2019 to 2022. Patients with SHF were matched with those with IHF in a 1:2 ratio according to the similarity of age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index classification. Demographics at admission, baseline characteristics, and 1-year postoperative outcome were compared between the SHF and IHF groups.

Results

Thirty-two SHF patients were matched with 64 IHF patients (81.25% of women, median age of 86 years). Anthropometric measurements and socioeconomic factors were not significantly different between the two groups. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed, except IHF patients had a significantly lower T-score than SHF patients (−3.98 vs. −3.31, P = 0.016). At one-year follow-up, despite a notable decrease in Barthel Index scores and an uptick in EQ-5D measures among the patients, the IHF and SHF groups demonstrated similar quality of life and a high level of activities of daily living.

Discussions

In this case-control study, after matching for age, sex, and comorbidities, an SHF did not indicate poorer outcomes than an IHF, providing a more optimistic outlook for the patients and healthcare providers.

Conclusion

Despite the significant challenges presented by hip fracture, the one-year postoperative outcomes did not differ between IHF and SHF patients, suggesting that SHF is not an independent predictor of poor outcomes following hip fracture in the elderly population.

Keywords

initial hip fracture second hip fracture predictor outcome quality of life

Introduction

Hip fracture is well established to be a severe condition, leading to impaired functional independence and decreased quality of life (QoL).^1-4 The number of hip fractures was predicted to increase to over 6 million by 2050 worldwide, which would pose a massive burden on the healthcare system and economies worldwide.⁵ After experiencing the initial fracture, individuals with osteoporosis or frailty are at a heightened risk of sustaining a second hip fracture (SHF).^6,7 Although the negative impact of hip fracture has been clearly investigated in previous studies, the impact of SHF remains discrepant and is not fully understood.⁸

In recent years, there has been a growing focus in published papers on determining the risk of SHF and their associated mortality risks^1,9-12 or evaluating outcomes following SHF.^13-16 Pearse et al.¹⁷ initially reported that SHFs significantly impacted patients’ mobility and social independence compared to patients with initial hip fractures (IHF). In another study conducted by Sawalha et al.¹⁶, involving 5341 patients with IHF and 633 patients with SHF, significant differences were noted between the two groups in terms of age, gender, mental status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading, and mobility score. Despite these disparities, the outcomes for both groups were comparable one year after the hip fractures. On the other hand, comorbidity was reported to be a significant predictor influencing rehabilitation after hip fracture, with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) associated with unfavorable rehabilitation results.^18-20 Considering that patients with SHF tend to be older, more frailty, and have more comorbidities, all of which are risk factors for poor outcomes, there is still a conflicting perspective on whether SHF independently impacts outcomes for geriatric patients after a hip fracture.

To investigate the impact of SHF on the elderly, accounting for potential interference from other confounding factors, a matched-pair case-control study was designed. We hypothesized that, given the shared characteristics of age, sex, and comorbidities between the two groups of patients experiencing SHF and those with IHF, their postoperative outcomes would be similar.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective matched-pair case-control study conducted using data retrieved from the clinical hip fracture registry at a medical center in Taipei, Taiwan. The inclusion criteria for patient enrollment involved individuals aged 60 years or older who sustained hip fractures and underwent surgical treatment. Patients were excluded if they underwent hip surgery for conditions other than primary hip fractures, such as osteoarthritis, trauma, tumor metastasis, infection, or avascular necrosis of the femoral head. The entire protocol and all instruments used were approved by the Ethical Committee of Taipei Medical University. All participants provided written informed consent for their participation and the publication of this study.

Study Design

From January 2019 to January 2022, 500 patients treated for hip fractures were identified from the clinical hip fracture registry. To clarify the data for further analysis, we excluded 58 patients from this cohort, who unfortunately passed away within one year. Among the remaining 442 patients, 32 experienced an SHF, while 410 patients suffered an IHF. We performed a matched-pair analysis at a 1:2 ratio, according to the homogeneity of age, sex, and comorbidity conditions through the Charles Comorbidity Index (CCI),²¹ which was classified into normal (CCI 0), mild (CCI 1-2), moderate (CCI 2-4), and severe (CCI ≥ 5), to finally identify a control group of 64 patients from 410 patients with IHF. The study flowchart is demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The study flowchart.

Demographic information was retrieved, including age at the time of hip fracture, sex distribution, height, weight, body mass index, social-economical factors (education, marriage status, coliving, caregiver, and occupation), types of fracture (femoral neck, trochanteric, and subtrochanteric fractures). Baseline characteristics at admission included mental status evaluation using the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ), laboratory results (routine blood test and biochemical blood test), CCI, handgrip strength, bone mineral density measured by T-score recorded through Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA).

All our patients were enrolled in a fracture liaison service to promote functional recovery.²² Depending on their fracture patterns and conditions, they underwent hip arthroplasty or osteosynthesis. After surgery, they were provided with a comprehensive and tailored rehabilitation program aimed at maximizing their recovery and functional outcomes. Following their discharge from the hospital, patients were further managed with a multifaceted approach to address their underlying osteoporosis, according to their DXA results. This involved the implementation of anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) with calcium and vitamin D. Clinical outcomes were collected during the one-year follow-up, including QoL assessed through the EuroQol-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D), and activities of daily living (ADL) evaluated using the Barthel Index (BI).

Instruments

The EQ-5D is a globally recognized tool for assessing health-related QoL.²³ This tool comprises five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression). For every dimension, there are three levels of severity (no problems, some problems, and significant problems). The EQ-5D was useful for evaluating QoL after hip fracture surgery.²⁴

The BI is a ranking system that evaluates a patient’s functional independence.²⁵ This scale comprises ten daily living activities, including bowel function, bladder function, grooming, toilet use, feeding independence, transfer independence, mobility, dressing ability, stair use, and bathing. Scores on this scale range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater independence in daily living. Patients with higher scores demonstrate a higher level of ability to live independently. The BI is also used to monitor improvements in disability over time.²⁶

The SPMSQ is a widely used screening tool to assess an individual's mental acuity and cognitive function,²⁷ consisting of questions and tasks that evaluate memory, orientation, and basic mathematical skills. It is commonly employed in the geriatric population to identify potential cognitive impairment or dementia in patients.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS - version 24.0 for Windows, IBM Corp.). The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to reveal the distribution of the data. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize categorical variables in frequencies and proportions; continuous variables were summarized using means and standard deviations for normally distributed data or medians and interquartile ranges for non-normally distributed data. Comparative analyses were conducted using unpaired t-test for parametric variables, Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric variables, and Chi-square test for categorical variables. We used the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test to compare the EQ-5D and BI scores between two time points. The results were considered statistically significant with a P-value less than 0.05.

Results

Our cohort included a total of 500 patients (149 males and 351 females), with a mean age of 81.05 ± 9.31; the oldest was 103, and the youngest was 60. Thirty-seven patients presented SHFs, accounting for 7.40%. There were 58 patients (11.60%) who died within 1 year, including 53 in 464 IHF patients (11.42%) and 5 in 37 SHF patients (13.51%); the difference in the mortality rate between SHF and IHF groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.702).

After matched pairing with age, sex, and CCI classification, 96 patients were included, with 64 IHFs and 32 SHFs. The median age was 86, the oldest was 99, and the youngest was 66. Women (n = 78, 81.25%) were seen more than men (n = 18, 18.75%). Table 1 shows no statistically significant differences in anthropometric data and socioeconomic factors between IHF and SHF patients.

Table 1.

Participant demographics.

Variables	TotalN = 96	IHF n = 64	SHF n = 32	P-value
Age	86 [82.5-89]	86 [82.50-89.00]	86 [82.00-89.00]	0.969¹
Sex				1.000²
Male	18 (18.25)	12 (18.75)	6 (18.75)
Female	78 (81.25)	52 (81.25)	26 (81.25)
Height (cm)	155 [150.00-158.00]	155 [150.00-158.65]	155 [151.00-158.00]	0.420¹
Weight (kg)	53.96 ± 9.79	52.79 ± 8.61	56.3 ± 11.59	0.136
Body mass index (kg/m ² )	22.6 [20.05-24.40]	22.08 ± 2.91	23.35 ± 4.71	0.170
Education				0.922²
Primary school and below	65 (67.71)	42 (65.62)	23 (71.87)
Junior high school	9 (9.37)	6 (9.38)	3 (9.38)
Senior high school	11 (11.46)	8 (12.50)	3 (9.38)
University and above	11 (11.46)	8 (12.50)	3 (9.37)
Marriage status				0.779²
Married	57 (59.37)	37 (57.81)	20 (62.50)
Widow	34 (35.42)	23 (35.93)	11 (34.38)
Unmarried	3 (3.13)	2 (3.13)	1 (3.12)
Divorce	2 (2.08)	2 (3.13)	0 (0)
Coliving				0.411²
Living with family	77 (80.21)	52 (81.25)	25 (78.12)
Living alone	9 (9.37)	7 (10.94)	2 (6.25)
Nursing care institutions	10 (10.42)	5 (7.81)	5 (15.63)
Caregiver				0.313²
Family	68 (70.83)	48 (75.00)	20 (62.50)
Nursing care institution	7 (7.29)	4 (6.25)	3 (9.37)
Domestic helpers	18 (18.75)	10 (15.62)	8 (25.00)
Friends or neighbors	2 (2.08)	2 (3.13)	0 (0)
Nursing	1 (1.05)	0 (0)	1 (3.13)
Occupation				0.453²
Public	2 (2.08)	2 (3.13)	0 (0)
Merchants	1 (1.05)	1 (1.56)	0 (0)
Service industry	3 (3.12)	3 (4.68)	0 (0)
None	63 (65.62)	42 (65.63)	21 (65.63)
Retirement	27 (28.13)	16 (25.00)	11 (34.37)

IHF: Initial hip fracture. SHF: Second hip fracture.

Data were demonstrated under Mean ± Standard Deviation or Median [Interquartile Range] or n (%).

¹ Mann-Whitney U Test.

² Chi-square test.

Admission characteristics are summarized in Table 2. No significant differences were observed between the SHF and IHF groups regarding QoL (EQ-5D: 6 vs. 5, P = 0.073), functional independence (BI score: 90 vs 95, P = 0.123), or mental status (SPMSQ: 3 vs. 1, P = 0.064). Among 96 hip fracture patients, there were 57 femoral neck fractures, 36 trochanteric fractures, and 3 subtrochanteric fractures. Forty hip arthroplasties and 56 osteosyntheses were performed. There were no significant differences in fracture types (P = 0.444) and treatment methods (P = 0.306) between the two groups. Patients with IHF had significantly poorer bone quality than SHF patients (T-score: −3.98 vs. −3.31, P = 0.016). The two groups also had no significant differences in blood test results or handgrip strength.

Table 2.

Admission Characteristics.

Variables	IHF n = 64	SHF n = 32	P-value
Charlson Comorbidity Index	1 [0-8]	1 [0-5]	0.766¹
Quality of Life
EQ-5D	5 [5-7]	6 [5-7.5]	0.073¹
Mental status
SPMSQ	1 [0-4.5]	3 [0.5-8]	0.064¹
Activities of Daily Living
Barthel Index	95 [87.5-100]	90 [77.5-100]	0.123¹
Blood tests
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	12.08 ± 1.82	12.14 ± 1.57	0.872²
Platelet (x10³/μL)	193 [157.50-243.00]	170 [155.00-193.00]	0.108¹
WBC (10⁹/L)	9.22 ± 3.19	9.71 ± 2.66	0.427²
Creatinine (mg/dL)	0.84 [0.68-1.24]	0.75 [0.64-1.08]	0.242¹
Albumin (g/dL)	3.16 ± 0.40^a	3.06 ± 0.32	0.171²
Fracture types
Femoral neck	38 (59.37)	19 (59.38)	0.444³
Trochanteric	23 (35.94)	13 (40.62)
Subtrochanteric	3 (4.67)	0 (0)
Treatment methods
Hip arthroplasty	29 (45.31)	11 (34.38)	0.306³
Osteosynthesis	35 (54.69)	21 (65.62)	0.306³
Muscle strength
Grip strength (kg)	9.40 [5.95-13.60]	9.85 [6.75-13.85]	0.594¹
Grip strength/BMI	0.46 [0.28-0.66]	0.45 [0.25-0.68]	0.941¹
Bone mineral density
T-score	−3.98 ± 1.20	−3.31 ± 1.28	0.016^2,*

IHF: Initial hip fracture. SHF: Second hip fracture.

WBC: White blood cell. SPMSQ: The Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire.

EQ-5D: EuroQol-5D questionnaire. BMI: Body mass index.

Data were demonstrated under Mean ± Standard Deviation or Median [Interquartile Range] or n (%).

^a n = 61.

¹ Mann-Whitney U Test.

² Unpaired t-test.

³ Chi-square test.

* Statistically significant.

As shown in Table 3, 71 (74%) patients received AOMs, including selective estrogen-receptor modulators, bisphosphonate, denosumab, or teriparatide after surgery, with no significant difference in anti-osteoporosis intervention between the two groups (P = 0.742). The rate of patients having severe osteoporosis who got AOMs reached 83.5%. One year post-surgery, SHF patients showed significant improvements in QoL (EQ-5D: 6 to 7, P = 0.005), as did IHF patients (EQ-5D: 5 to 6.5, P < 0.001). However, both groups experienced a marked decline in functional independence, with SHF patients’ median BI scores decreasing from 90 to 85 (P = 0.005) and IHF patients' scores dropping from 95 to 90 (P < 0.001). Despite these changes, both SHF and IHF patients maintained high life quality and ADL, with no significant differences found between the two groups (EQ-5D: 7 vs. 6.5, P = 0.177; and BI scores: 85 vs. 90, P = 0.161).

Table 3.

Post-operative Anti-osteoporosis Treatment and Clinical Outcome Comparison at 1-Year Follow-up Between Two Groups.

Variables	IHF n = 64	SHF n = 32	P-value
Anti-osteoporosis medication	48 (75)	23 (71.86)	0.742¹
Selective estrogen-receptor modulators	2 (4.17)	0
Bisphosphonate	9 (18.75)	7 (30.43)
Denosumab	33 (68.75)	15 (65.22)
Teriparatide	4 (8.33)	1 (4.35)
Quality of Life (EQ- 5D)
Baseline	5 [5-7]	6 [5-7.5]	0.073²
1-year follow-up	6.5 [5-8.5]	7 [6-9]	0.177²
P-value	< 0.001^3,*	0.005^3,*
Activities of Daily Living (Barthel Index)
Baseline	95 [87.5-100]	90 [77.5-100]	0.123²
1-year follow-up	90 [60-100]	85 [50-92.5]	0.161²
P-value	< 0.001^3,*	0.001^3,*
Change at 1- year follow- up from baseline
EQ-5D	0 [0-0]	1.5 [0-1.5]	0.423²
Barthel Index	−5 [-20 to −5]	−10 [-27.5 to −10]	0.601²

IHF: Initial hip fracture. SHF: Second hip fracture.

EQ-5D: EuroQol-5D questionnaire.

Data were demonstrated under n (%) or Median [Interquartile Range].

¹ Chi-square Test.

² Mann-Whitney U Test.

³ Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.

* Statistically significant.

Discussions

This study involved a cohort of 500 patients who underwent surgery for hip fractures. Our analyses focused on a subset of 32 individuals with SHF and a control group comprising 64 patients with IHF, ensuring homogeneity in age, sex, and CCI classification. Both groups exhibited no significant differences in demographics, baseline characteristics, and clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. These findings suggested that an SHF did not independently indicate unfavorable outcomes following hip fracture in the elderly population.

In our cohort, the overall mortality rate was low, accounting for 11.6%, which was consistent with prior studies.^3,22,28-30 The mortality rate after SHF was seen as higher than IHF at one year. Numerous studies also reported similar trends of increased mortality in SHF patients.^15,16,31 This could be attributed to these patients experiencing greater frailty and deteriorating health conditions, requiring more intensive care and intervention.

Our matched-pair patients exhibited significantly decreased QoL and functional independence after 1 year, comparable with previous studies.^14,24,32,33 Many factors like advanced age, pre-existing morbidities, time intervals between fractures, and comprehensive rehabilitation programs played a significant role in determining outcomes.^7,34,35 A prior cohort study comparing 246 IHF with 42 SHF cases highlighted SHF’s impact in increasing the risk of readmission and mortality, independent of variations in demographic factors, comorbidities, or multiple medications.⁸ Other authors argued that the increasing age is a more significant factor in the elevated risk of death than the SHF itself after hip fractures.³⁶ Moreover, Solou et al.¹² underscored the significance of geriatric nursing support in facilitating functional recovery after recurrent hip fractures. Our study found that, when controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities, SHF patients demonstrated similar levels of independence and QoL as those with IHF patients one year after surgery. These results aligned with a previous study.¹⁶ The notion that an SHF did not indicate poorer outcomes than an IHF provided a more optimistic outlook for the patients and healthcare providers. It highlighted the importance of comprehensive care, preventive strategies, and personalized rehabilitation in managing hip fractures, whether it was their first or second one.

Dementia is a significant risk factor for hip fractures.^37,38 Mitani et al.³⁹ conducted a study of 384 patients with a mean age of 83.1 and confirmed dementia to be a risk factor for SHF, while 85.7% of the recurrent hip fractures occurred within three years of their first fractures. Several factors, including advanced age, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, and high falling risk, were reported to be serious issues for elderly individuals with dementia, often leading to fractures.^40-42 In our study, although the SPMSQ score differences between the IHF and SHF groups were not statistically significant, SHF patients made more errors than those in the IHF group. Therefore, it is essential to identify elderly patients with dementia, especially after hip fractures, and implement comprehensive management and preventative measures to avoid future injuries and reduce the risk of fractures.^42,43

Our IHF patients had poorer bone quality than SHF patients. This result was familiar to Helynen et al.’s study⁴⁴, which showed a substantially lower T-score in IHF than in SHF patients (T-score = −2.4 vs. −1.0, respectively, P = 0.016). This could be attributed to anti-osteoporosis management after the first hip fracture. Nevertheless, the treatment given to our patients might not have been effective, as their T-score values fell significantly lower than the World Health Organization’s criteria for severe osteoporosis (T-score below −2.5 with previous fractures).⁴⁵ Prior studies have established an inverse correlation between bone mineral density measured under the T-score and the risk of frailty fracture.^46,47 This emphasized the importance of early detection of osteoporosis in elderly patients deemed at high risk and suggested practitioners provide appropriate intervention to slow down the bone loss process and reduce subsequent fracture risk.

Several limitations should be considered in this study. Firstly, our patients were recalled from a single medical center, which might restrict the generalizability of findings to broader populations. Secondly, the rehabilitation program and anti-osteoporosis treatment were personalized for every patient, which could cause bias in the management and outcomes. Thirdly, functional outcomes were assessed based on patient- or caregiver-reported data without utilizing an additional objective tool, potentially affecting accuracy. Finally, a one-year follow-up period might be insufficient for thoroughly assessing the long-term impact of an SHF on patient outcomes.

Nevertheless, our study indicated that SHF was not an independent predictor for poor outcomes. With suitable intervention and rehabilitation, the performance of patients after SHF is comparable to that of those with IHF. The remaining higher mortality rate in SHF patients requires further investigations to explore the underlying factors influencing individuals sustaining subsequent hip fractures, ultimately paving the way for more effective preventive strategies and rehabilitation programs.

Conclusion

Elderly patients are at a heightened risk of hip fractures, which can lead to a substantial decline in their QoL and impairments in their functional and mental state. Despite the significant challenges presented by hip fractures, the one-year postoperative outcomes did not differ between IHF and SHF patients, suggesting that SHF is not an independent predictor for poor outcomes following hip fracture in the elderly population.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Second Hip Fracture is not an Independent Predictor of Poor Outcomes in Elderly Patients – A Case-Control Study

Supplemental Material for The Second Hip Fracture is not an Independent Predictor of Poor Outcomes in Elderly Patients – A Case-Control Study by Bao Tu Thai Nguyen, Shu-Wei Huang, Yi-Jie Kuo, Tan Thanh Nguyen, Yu-Pin Chen in Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Wan Fang Hospital (Grant numbers 110-wf-eva-17 and 113-wf-swf-03) for supporting this research.

Author Contribution

BTT. Nguyen: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing – Original Draft

S-W. Huang: Validation, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft

Y-J. Kuo: Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision

TT. Nguyen: Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Y-P. Chen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Y-P. Chen took responsibility as the corresponding author. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Taipei Medical University (Grant number 112-5417-005-111).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Bao Tu Thai Nguyen

Tan Thanh Nguyen

Yu-Pin Chen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Fujita

Takegami

Ando

, et al. Risk factors for second hip fracture in elderly patients: an age, sex, and fracture type matched case-control study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022;32(3):437-442. doi:10.1007/s00590-021-02996-0

Yang

Kuo

Huang

Chen

. Minimal short-term decline in functional performance and quality of life predicts better long-term outcomes for both in older Taiwanese adults after hip fracture surgery: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):791. doi:10.1186/s13018-023-04278-3

Chen

Kuo

Liu

, et al. Prognostic factors for 1-year functional outcome, quality of life, care demands, and mortality after surgery in Taiwanese geriatric patients with a hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021;13:1759720X211028360. doi:10.1177/1759720X211028360

Nguyen

BTT

Tran

DNA

Nguyen

Kuo

Chen

. The association between red blood cell distribution width and mortality risk after hip fracture: a meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(3). doi:10.3390/medicina60030485

Dhanwal

Dennison

Harvey

Cooper

. Epidemiology of hip fracture: worldwide geographic variation. Indian J Orthop. 2011;45(1):15-22. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.73656

Klotzbuecher

Ross

Landsman

Abbott

Berger

. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15(4):721-739. doi:10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.4.721.

Hagino

Sawaguchi

Endo

Ito

Nakano

Watanabe

. The risk of a second hip fracture in patients after their first hip fracture. Calcif Tissue Int. 2012;90(1):14-21. doi:10.1007/s00223-011-9545-6

Trevisan

Bedogni

Pavan

, et al. The impact of second hip fracture on rehospitalization and mortality in older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;90:104175. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2020.104175

Batin

Ozan

Gurbuz

Koyuncu

Vatansever

Uzun

. Evaluation of risk factors for second hip fractures in elderly patients. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(3):217-220. doi:10.14740/jocmr3287w

10.

Wang

Yin

Yang

, et al. Muscle density is an independent risk factor of second hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13(3):1927-1937. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12996

11.

Zidrou

Vasiliadis

Rizou

Beletsiotis

. Second hip fracture in older adults: incidence and risk factors. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023;33(5):1599-1606. doi:10.1007/s00590-022-03309-9

12.

Solou

Tyllianakis

Kouzelis

Lakoumentas

Panagopoulos

. Morbidity and mortality after second hip fracture with and without nursing care program. Cureus. 2022;14(3):e23373. doi:10.7759/cureus.23373

13.

Marco Di Monaco

RDM

Manca

Cavanna

. Functional recovery and length of stay after recurrent hip fracture. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(2):86-89. doi:10.1097/00002060-200202000-00002

14.

Yoshii

Kitaoka

Hashimoto

. Clinical characteristics of osteoporotic second hip fracture: from the data of Clinical Pathway with Regional Alliance in rural region in Japan. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(5):836-841. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2018.12.029

15.

Sarah

Berry

EJS

Hannan

et al. Second hip fracture in older men and women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(18):1971-1976. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.18.1971

16.

Sawalha

Parker

. Characteristics and outcome in patients sustaining a second contralateral fracture of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(1):102-106. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B1.27983

17.

Pearse

Redfern

Sinha

Edge

. Outcome following a second hip fracture. Injury. 2003;34(7):518-521. doi:10.1016/s0020-1383(02)00282-6

18.

Quan

Couris

, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):676-682. doi:10.1093/aje/kwq433

19.

Radosavljevic

Nikolic

Lazovic

Hrkovic

Ilic-Stojanovic

. Comorbidity impact on social functioning after hip fracture: the role of rehabilitation. Acta Ortop Bras. 2016;24(4):213-216. doi:10.1590/1413-785220162404156874

20.

Gonzalez-Zabaleta

Pita-Fernandez

Seoane-Pillado

Lopez-Calvino

Gonzalez-Zabaleta

. Comorbidity as a predictor of mortality and mobility after hip fracture. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(5):561-569. doi:10.1111/ggi.12510

21.

Mary

Charlson

Ales

Ronald MacKenzie

. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8

22.

Chen

Chang

Wen

Chien

Huang

Kuo

. Multipronged programmatic strategy for preventing secondary fracture and facilitating functional recovery in older patients after hip fractures: our experience in Taipei municipal wanfang hospital. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(7). doi:10.3390/medicina58070875

23.

Group

. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol. 1990;16:199-208.

24.

Gjertsen

Baste

Fevang

Furnes

Engesaeter

. Quality of life following hip fractures: results from the Norwegian hip fracture register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:265. doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1111-y

25.

Mahoney

FIBD

. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index: a simple index of independence useful in scoring improvement in the rehabilitation of the chronically ill. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61-65.

26.

Ferrucci CK

Bandinelli

Disability

JMG

. Functional status, and activities of daily living. In: Birren

, ed. Encyclopedia of Gerontology. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2007.

27.

Pfeiffer

Short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433-441. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1975.tb00927.x

28.

Hsu

Chang

Yang

, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in one-year mortality of elderly people with hip fracture in taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(2). doi:10.3390/ijerph15020352

29.

Chiang

Huang

Kuo

, et al. Prognostic factors for mortality, activity of daily living, and quality of life in Taiwanese older patients within 1 Year following hip fracture surgery. J Pers Med. 2022;12(1). doi:10.3390/jpm12010102

30.

Wang

Lin

Liang

, et al. Excess mortality after hip fracture among the elderly in Taiwan: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Bone. 2013;56(1):147-153. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2013.05.015

31.

Chen

Tai

Chou

, et al. Incidence of different types of subsequent fractures and related mortality in Taiwan. Arch Osteoporos. 2022;17(1):55. doi:10.1007/s11657-022-01098-6

32.

Rosell MJP

PAE

. Functional outcome after hip fracture - a 1-year prospective outcome study of 275 patients. Injury. 2002;34(7):529-535. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(02)00414-X

33.

Civinini

Paoli

Cianferotti

, et al. Functional outcomes and mortality in geriatric and fragility hip fractures-results of an integrated, multidisciplinary model experienced by the “Florence hip fracture unit. Int Orthop. 2019;43(1):187-192. doi:10.1007/s00264-018-4132-3

34.

Shen

Huang

Tsai

, et al. Risk analysis for second hip fracture in patients after hip fracture surgery: a nationwide population-based study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15(10):725-731. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2014.05.010

35.

Bang

YXSY

Low

Vasanwala

Low

. Predictors of poor functional outcomes and mortality in patients with hip fracture: a systematic review. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2019;20(568). doi:10.1186/s12891-019-2950-0

36.

Sobolev

Sheehan

Kuramoto

Guy

. Excess mortality associated with second hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(7):1903-1910. doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3104-3

37.

Liang

Wang

. Alzheimer's disease is an important risk factor of fractures: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Mol Neurobiol. 2017;54(5):3230-3235. doi:10.1007/s12035-016-9841-2

38.

Friedman

Menzies

Bukata

Mendelson

Kates

. Dementia and hip fractures: development of a pathogenic framework for understanding and studying risk. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2010;1(2):52-62. doi:10.1177/2151458510389463

39.

Mitani

Shimizu

Abo

Hagino

Kurozawa

. Risk factors for second hip fractures among elderly patients. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(2):192-197. doi:10.1007/s00776-009-1440-x

40.

Sharma

Mueller

Stewart

, et al. Predictors of falls and fractures leading to hospitalization in people with dementia: a representative cohort study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(7):607-612. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2018.03.009

41.

Vun

JSH

Ahmadi

Panteli

Pountos

Giannoudis

. Dementia and fragility fractures: issues and solutions. Injury. 2017;48(Suppl 7):S10-S16. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.031

42.

Menzies

Mendelson

Kates

Friedman

. Prevention and clinical management of hip fractures in patients with dementia. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2010;1(2):63-72. doi:10.1177/2151458510389465

43.

Wang

H-K

Hung

C-M

Lin

S-H

, et al. Increased risk of hip fractures in patients with dementia: a nationwide population-based study. BMC Neurol. 2014;14(1):175. doi:10.1186/s12883-014-0175-2

44.

Helynen

Rantanen

Lehenkari

Valkealahti

. Predisposing factors for a second fragile hip fracture in a population of 1130 patients with hip fractures, treated at Oulu University Hospital in 2013-2016: a retrospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(5):2261-2271. doi:10.1007/s00402-022-04406-4

45.

Sozen

Ozisik

Basaran

. An overview and management of osteoporosis. Eur J Rheumatol. 2017;4(1):46-56. doi:10.5152/eurjrheum.2016.048

46.

Marshall

Johnell

Wedel

. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ. 1996;312(7041):1254-1259. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7041.1254

47.

Johnell

Kanis

Oden

, et al. Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(7):1185-1194. doi:10.1359/JBMR.050304

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.95 MB