Medical and social consequences of fractures of the proximal femur in elderly and senile subjects (literature review)

Authors

  • Vladimir Babalyan
  • Tamara Hurbanova
  • Dmytro Cherepov
  • Оlexander Khvysyuk
  • Andrii Kalchenko

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720172130-134

Keywords:

fractures of the proximal femur, quality of life, medical and social consequences

Abstract

The medico-social consequences of fractures of the proximal femur in elderly patients, the medical care system for such in­juries in various countries, complications and lethality are ana­lyzed. It was noted that the mortality rates during the first year after the fracture of proximal femur ranges from 21.5 to 40.0 %, in 20–50 % of cases, patients become disabled and even three years after injury the indicators of «physical functioning» and «general health» remain low. Return to the regular way of life fracture of proximal femur, observes in 20–50 % of patients only. It is established that 20–60 % of the injured persons need daily assistance, and more elderly people living in boarding schools and nursing homes, compared to those living in families. Based on the results of the STOP study (system for recording of osteoporotic fractures), Ukraine is classified as a country with a moderate risk of developing osteoporosis and its compli­cations, and the incidence of fractures of proximal femur is simi­lar to that of Romania and Poland. In Sweden and the UK, na­tional programs have been developed for the treatment of pa­tients with fracture of proximal femur, which include surgical intervention within 48 hours after trauma, geriatric consultation within 72 hours after admission, early post-operative mobiliza­tion, bedsore prevention, osteoporosis medication, supervision of a geriatrician. All this allowed to reduce the length of stay of the patient in the hospital, to reduce the number of complica­tions, to reduce the lethality and the cost of treatment by 40 %. Surgical treatment of elderly and senile patients with proximal femur fractures as soon as possible is the «gold standard».

Author Biographies

Vladimir Babalyan

Kharkiv Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine 

PhD

babalyanvladimir@gmail.com

Tamara Hurbanova

Kharkiv Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine

CHI «17 municipal multidisciplinary hospital of Kharkiv». Ukraine

tamaragurbanova1@rambler.ru

Dmytro Cherepov

CHI «17 municipal multidisciplinary hospital of Kharkiv». Ukraine

dmcherepov@gmail.com

Оlexander Khvysyuk

Kharkiv Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine

MD, Prof.

office@med.edu.ua

Andrii Kalchenko

Kharkiv Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine

CHI «17 municipal multidisciplinary hospital of Kharkiv». Ukraine

References

  1. Akhtyamov IF, Shigaev ES, Guryleva ME. Staged assessment of the socio-psychological state of patients with proximal femoral injuries. Practical medicine. 2014;(4): 29–34. (in Russian)
  2. Gladkova EN, Khodyrev VN, Lesnyak OM. Analysis of motor activity after the fracture of the proximal hip region in the population of urban residents of the Sverdlovsk region. Pain. Joints. Spine. 2012;(3): 84-5. . (in Russian)
  3. Povoroznyuk VV, Grygorieva NV, Korzh MO, Strafun SS, Vaida VM, Klymovytsky FV, Vlasenko RO, Forosenko VS, Kanis JA, Johansson H, McCloskey EV. Epidemiology of the proximal femur fractures in ukraine: results of stop-study (system of registration of osteoporotic fractures in ukrainian population). Trauma. 2016;17(5):14–20. (in Ukrainian)
  4. Lesnyak OM, Bakhtiyarova CA, Goloborodko KN, Kuznetsova NL. Quality of life in osteoporosis. Prospective observation of patients who have undergone a fracture of the proximal femur. Osteoporosis and osteopathies. 2007;(3): 4–8. (in Russian)
  5. Kopirovskii KM. Experience of a non-state charity center in the rehabilitation of single elderly patients with a femur neck fracture. Klinicheskaya gerontologiya. 2005;(7):35. (in Russian)
  6. Kuzmin AM, Kirpichev IV. The quality of life of patients with the consequences of fracture of the neck of the femur. Sovremennie problemy nauki I obrazovaniya. 2011;(6):1–8. Available from: https://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/ view?id=5008. (in Russian)
  7. Lesnyak OM, Benevolenskaya LI. Osteoporosis. Diagnosis, prevention and treatment: clinical guidelines. 2nd ed. Moskow: GEOTAR-Media, 2010. 272 p. (in Russian)
  8. Ardashev IP, Basov AV, Kazanin KS, Grigoruk AA, Kalashnikov VV, Kalashnikov VV, Shpakovsky MS. Experience of treatment of subcapital fractures with cannulated screws. Politravma. 2012;(1): 32-7. (in Russian)
  9. Novik AA, Ionova TI. Guide to the study of quality of life in medicine. 3rd ed. Мoskow: RAEN, 2012. 528 p. (in Russian)
  10. Prokhorova EA, Dreval AV, Marchenkova LA. Interdependence of osteoporosis with a decrease in quality of life and psycho-emotional disorders. Russian medical journal. 2012;(4):50-3. (in Russian)
  11. Olsson LE, Hansson E, Ekman I, Karlsson J. A cost-effectiveness study of a patient-centred integrated care pathway. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(8):1626-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05017.x.
  12. Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N, Magaziner J, Beaupre LA, Cameron ID, Sherrington C; Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Rehabilitation Research Special Interest Group. A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):158-74. doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0.
  13. Clinical practice guideline for the assessment and prevention of falls in older people. London: Royal College of Nursing, 2004. 284 р.
  14. Cooley MR, Kenneth КJ. Hip fracture epidemiology and risk factors. Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2004;19(3):104-14.
  15. Rogmark C, Carlsson A, Johnell O, Sembo I. Costs of internal fixation and arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized study of 68 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(3):293-8. doi: 10.1080/00016470310014210.
  16. Reginster JY, Gillet P, Ben Sedrine W, Brands G, Ethgen O, de Froidmont C, Gosset C. Direct costs of hip fractures in patients over 60 years of age in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(5):507-14.
  17. Novack V, Jotkowitz A, Etzion O, Porath A. Does delay in surgery after hip fracture lead to worse outcomes. A multicenter survey. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(3):170–6. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm003.
  18. Wiktorowicz ME, Goeree R, Papaioannou A, Adachi JD, Papadimitropoulos E. Economic implications of hip fractures: health service use, institutional care and cost in Canada. Osteoporosis Int. 2001;12:271-8. doi: 10.1007/s001980170116.
  19. Koot VC, Peeters PH, de Jong JR, Clevers GJ, van der Werken C. Functional results after treatment of hip fracture: a multicentre, prospective study in 215 patients. Eur J Surg. 2000;166 (6):480-5. doi: 10.1080/110241500750008808.
  20. Galvard H, Samuelsson S. Orthopaedic or Geriatric rehabilitation of hip fracture patients: a prospective, randomised, clinically controlled study in Malmo, Sweden. Aging (Milano). 1995;7(1):11-6.
  21. Lim S, Koo BK, Lee EJ, et al. Incidence of hip fractures in Korea. J Bone Miner Metab. 2008;26(4):400-5. zdoi: 10.1007/s00774-007-0835-z.
  22. Konnopka A, Jerusel N, König HH. The health and economic consequences of osteopenia- and osteoporosis-attributable hip fractures in Germany: estimation for 2002 and projection until 2050. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(7);1117-29. doi: 10.1007/s00198-008-0781-1.
  23. Negrete-Corona J, Alvarado-Soriano JC, Reyes-Santiago LA. Negrete-Corona J Hip fracture as risk factor for mortality in patients over 65 years of age. Acta Ortop Mex. 2014;28(6):352-62.
  24. Olsson LE, Karlsson J, Ekman I. The integrated care pathway reduced the number of hospital days by half: a prospective comparative study of patients with acute hip fracture. J Orthop Surg Res. 2006;1:3. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-1-3.
  25. Müller-Mai CM, Schulze Raestrup US, Kostuj T, Dahlhoff G, Günster C, Smektala R. One-year outcomes for proximalfemoral fractures: Posthospital analysis of mortality and care levels based on health insurance data. Unfallchirurg. 2015;118(9):780-94. doi: 10.1007/s00113-013-2534-7.
  26. Parikh S, Brookhart MA, Stedman M. Correlations of nursing home characteristics with prescription of osteoporosis medications. Bone. 2011;48(5):1164-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.02.006.
  27. Farahmand BY, Persson PG, Michaëlsson K, Baron JA, Alberts A, Moradi T, Ljunghall S. Physical activity and hip fracture: a population-based case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(2):308-14.
  28. Roder F, Schwab M, Aleker T, Mörike K, Thon KP, Klotz U. Proximal femur fracture in older patients rehabilitation and clinical outcomes. Age Ageing. 2003;32(l):74–80. doi: 10.1093/ageing/32.1.74.
  29. Griffin XL, Parsons N, Achten J, Fernandez M, Costa ML Recovery of health-related quality of life in a United Kingdom hip fracture population. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(3):372-82. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B3.35738.
  30. Riemen AH, Hutchison JD. The multidisciplinary management of hip fractures in older patients. Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(2):117-22. doi: 10.1016/j.mporth.2016.03.006.
  31. Thakar C, Alsousou J, Hamilton TW, Willett K. The cost and consequences of proximal femoral fractures which require further surgery following initial fixation. J Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2010;92(12):1669-77. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B12.25021.
  32. Leigheb F, Vanhaecht K, Sermeus W, Lodewijckx C, Deneckere S, Boonen S, Boto PA, Mendes RV, Panella M. The effect of care pathways for hip fractures: a systematic review. Calcif Tissue Int. 2012;91(1):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s00223-012-9589-2.
  33. The management of hip fractures in adults: The National Clinical Guideline Centre. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2011. 672 р.
  34. Lo JC, Srinivasan S, Chandra M, Patton M, Budayr A, Liu LH, Lau G, Grimsrud CD. Trends in mortality following hip fracture in older women. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(3):e206-14.

Downloads

How to Cite

Babalyan, V., Hurbanova, T., Cherepov, D., Khvysyuk О., & Kalchenko, A. (2017). Medical and social consequences of fractures of the proximal femur in elderly and senile subjects (literature review). ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (2), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720172130-134

Issue

No. 2 (2017)

Section

DIGESTS AND REVIEWS

License

Copyright (c) 2017 Vladimir Babalyan, Tamara Hurbanova, Dmytro Cherepov, Оlexander Khvysyuk, Andrii Kalchenko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the right of authorship of their manuscript and pass the journal the right of the first publication of this article, which automatically become available from the date of publication under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published manuscript with mandatory linking to authors of the original research and the first publication of this one in this journal.

Authors have the right to enter into a separate supplemental agreement on the additional non-exclusive distribution of manuscript in the form in which it was published by the journal (i.e. to put work in electronic storage of an institution or publish as a part of the book) while maintaining the reference to the first publication of the manuscript in this journal.

The editorial policy of the journal allows authors and encourages manuscript accommodation online (i.e. in storage of an institution or on the personal websites) as before submission of the manuscript to the editorial office, and during its editorial processing because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of the published manuscript citation (see The Effect of Open Access).