DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of Clinical Features of Hip Fracture Patients with Or Without Prior Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of Clinical Features of Hip Fracture Patients with Or Without Prior Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures J Bone Metab 2013;20:11-15 http://dx.doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2013.20.1.11 pISSN 2287-6375 eISSN 2287-7029 Original Article Analysis of Clinical Features of Hip Fracture Patients with or without Prior Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures Gang Deuk Kim1, Yeung Jin Kim2, Soo Uk Chae2, Deok Hwa Choi3 Departments of 1Radiology, 2Orthopeadic Surgery, and 3Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Wonkwang University Hospital, Iksan, Korea Corresponding author Background: To analyze and compare the clinical characteristics including bone mineral Soo Uk Chae density (BMD) in a group who had operation of hip fracture with or without prior osteo- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of porotic spinal compression fractures. Methods: Two hundred forty patients who had Medicine, Wonkwang University, 27 undergone operation of hip fractures were evaluated, 127 patients who had with prior Uiryowon-ro, Gunsan 573-713, Korea osteoporotic spinal compression fractures were in group I, and 113 patients without pri- Tel: +82-63-472-5100 or spinal fractures were in group II. In each group, we measured age, gender, body mass 2 3 Fax: +82-63-472-5688 index (BMI, kg/m ), BMD (mg/cm ), type of hip fractures, concomitant diseases, presence E-mail: [email protected] of secondary hip fracture and history of percutaneous vertebroplasty. Results: The mean age of group I was 79.4 years (male/female: 28/99) and that of group II was 77.6 years 2 Received: January 11, 2013 (male/female: 37/76). The mean BMI of group I was 21.3 kg/m and that in group II was 2 3 Revised: April 10, 2013 22.0 kg/m . The mean BMD and T-score of group I were 41.1 mg/cm and -4.45 and those 3 Accepted: April 10, 2013 in group II were 51.0 mg/cm and -4.17 (P<0.05). The numbers of patients of neck and intertrochanter fracture of group I were 31 and 96 patients and those in group II were 61 No potential conflict of interest relevant to this and 52 patients. Sixty in group I and 45 in group II patients had concomitant diseases. article was reported. Thirteen patients had undergone percutaneous vertebroplasty and 18 patients (7.5%) had second hip fractures. Conclusions: The hip fracture patients who had with prior os- This paper was supported by Wonkwang University teoporotic spinal compression fractures had lower BMD compared to the hip fracture in 2013. patients without previous spinal compression fractures. Key Words: Bone density, Hip fractures, Spinal fractures INTRODUCTION Recent studies reported increasing risks of hip, spine, and others among people who had previous clinically diagnosed fractures, or radiographic evidence of ver- tebral fractures.[1,2] Also, spinal radiographs identifying of prevalent vertebral Copyright © 2013 The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research deformities may be useful additional measurement to classify further a women’s This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Li- risk of future fracture.[1] Women with preexisting vertebral fractures had approxi- cense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) mately 4 times higher risk of subsequent vertebral fractures and 2.3 times greater which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribu- tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original risk of subsequent hip fractures than those without prior fractures.[2] work is properly cited. Percutaneous vertebroplasty is one of the most commonly performed proce- dures for symptomatic osteoporotic spinal fractures.[3,4] But, subsequent fracture of spine is a potential complication of vertebroplasty.[3,5] There are many reports http://e-jbm.org/ 11 Gang Deuk Kim, et al. of subsequent vertebral fracture while there are only a few computed tomography (P-QCT; Somatom sensation 16, Si- reports of non-vertebral fracture, especially, hip fractures af- mens, Erlangen, Germany) of thoracolumbar vertebrae ter percutanous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic spinal com­­ that enables separate analyses of cortical, trabecular and pression fracture. This present study aim to analyze and total bone density including T-score. compare the clinical characteristics of bone mineral density Quantitative variables (age, BMI, BMD and T-score) were (BMD) in a group of hip fracture patients whether or not pri- compared between groups by an independent T-test and or osteoporotic spinal compression fractures by cohort ret- difference in the categorical variables (sex, hip fracture rospective study. Additionally, whether or not of secondary type and concomitant disease) were compared using the hip fracture and history of percutaneous vertebroplasty in chi-square test. The Mann-Whitney U test for continuous both groups were investigated. variables was used. SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the statistical analyses. A P value of METHODS less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We reviewed 240 patients over 65 years of age among RESULTS 436 cases who had undergone operation of intertrochan- teric and neck of hip fractures in one hospital by retrospec- The mean age of group I was 79.4 years (range, 65 to 95 tive study from June 2006 to June 2012. We excluded pa- years) and group II was 77.6 years (range, 65 to 93 years). The tients who had hip fracture by high velocity injury such as mean BMI of group I was 21.32±4.2 kg/m2 (mean weight/ a motor vehicle accident or falling down from height, those mean height: 51.8 kg/155.9 cm) and group II was 22.03± with under 65 years of age, unexamined BMD, and previ- 3.4 kg/m2 (mean weight/ mean height: 55.9 kg/158.9 cm). ous spine fusion operation. We checked BMD and simple The mean BMD and T-score of group I were 41.12±21.9 thoracolumbar radiograph of whole patients at the time of mg/cm3 and -4.45±0.8 and those in group II were 51.00± injury. The patients were divided into prior osteoporotic 20.3 mg/cm3 and -4.17±0.7. The age of group I was rela- spinal compression fractures in group I (127 patients, male/ tively older than those of group II (P=0.124), but the BMIs female: 28/99) and without compression fractures in group had no significant difference between groups (P=0.293). II (113 patients, male/female: 37/76). In each group, we The BMD of group I was significantly lower than those of measured age and gender, body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) group II (P<0.001). Also, the T-score of group I was signifi- with weight and height, type of hip fractures, concomitant cantly lower than those of group II (P=0.007) (Table 1). The diseases, and presence of secondary hip fracture and un- numbers of patient of neck and intertrochanter fracture of dergone percutaneous vertebroplasty. The fractures were group I were 31 (24.4%) and 96 (75.6%) patients and those classified as hip fractures in intertrochanteric and femoral neck fractures. The definition of second hip fracture was Table 1. Demographic data patients who have suffered a hip fracture with a subse- Hip Fx with Hip Fx without quent fracture of the contralateral hip. The included con- prior spine Fx. prior spine Fx P value (n=127) (n=113) comitant diseases were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, Age (yr) 79.38±6.4 77.55±6.9 0.124 cardiac disease, and senile dementia. Sex (M/F) 28/99 37/76 0.080 Assessment of prior radiographic vertebral fractures has BMI (kg/m2) 21.32±4.2 22.03±3.4 0.293 been by a radiologist and two orthopedic surgeons. Six BMD (mg/cm3) 41.12±21.9 51.00±20.3 <0.001 points digitations on each vertebral body of the thoracic T-score -4.45±0.8 -4.17±0.7 0.007 and lumbar lateral radiograph for quantitative morphome- Concomitant Ds (n) 67 (52.8%) 68 (60.1%) 0.297 try were done as described previously, so that the anterior, Intertrochanteric Fx (n) 96 (75.6%) 52 (46.0%) <0.001 middle, and posterior heights could be accurately mea- Neck Fx (n) 31 (24.4%) 61 (54.0%) <0.001 sured.[6,7] Baseline prevalent deformities were defined us- Data are expressed as means±SD. Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ing a modified Melton/Eastell vertebral height ratio crite- Fx, fracture; BMI, body mass index; BMD, bone mineral density; Ds, dis- ria.[6] BMD was measured utilizing peripheral-quantitative ease. 12 http://e-jbm.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2013.20.1.11 Hip Fracture with or without Prior Spinal Fractures Table 2. Comparison of between hip fracture with or without verte- Table 3. Comparison of between unilateral hip fracture and second broplasty hip fracture Hip Fx with Hip Fx without Unilateral hip Second hip vertebroplasty vertebroplasty P value fracture fracture P value (n=13) (n=114) (n=222) (n=18) Age (yr) 78.50±6.5 79.52±6.4 0.535 Age (yr) 78.18±6.6 82.72±6.7 0.006 Sex (M/F) 2/11 26/88 1 Sex (M/F) 59/163 6/12 0.583 BMI (kg/m2) 21.25±2.8 21.32±6.4 0.963 BMI (kg/m2) 21.57±3.9 22.35±2.2 0.586 BMD (mg/cm3) 42.98±19.1 40.18±22.4 0.700 BMD (mg/cm3) 46.14±22.1 41.18±16.4 0.353 T-score -4.38±0.6 -4.46±0.8 0.694 T-score -4.30±0.8 -4.53±0.4 0.081 Concomitant Ds (n) 6 47 0.308 Concomitant Ds (n) 98 7 0.806 Data are expressed as means±SD.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pseudogout at the Knee Joint Will Frequently Occur After Hip Fracture
    Harato and Yoshida Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research (2015) 10:4 DOI 10.1186/s13018-014-0145-9 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Pseudogout at the knee joint will frequently occur after hip fracture and lead to the knee pain in the early postoperative period Kengo Harato1,3*† and Hiroki Yoshida2† Abstract Background: Symptomatic knee joint effusion is frequently observed after hip fracture, which may lead to postoperative knee pain during rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery. However, unfortunately, very little has been reported on this phenomenon in the literature. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between symptomatic knee effusion and postoperative knee pain and to clarify the reason of the effusion accompanied by hip fracture. Methods: A total of 100 patients over 65 years of age with an acute hip fracture after fall were prospectively followed up. Knee effusion was assessed on admission and at the operating room before the surgery. If knee effusion was observed at thetimeofthesurgery,synovialfluidwascollectedintosyringes to investigate the cause of the effusion using a compensated polarized light microscope. Furthermore, for each patient, we evaluated age, sex, radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA), type of the fracture, laterality, severity of the fracture, and postoperative knee pain during rehabilitation. These factors were compared between patients with and without knee effusion at the time of the surgery. As a statistical analysis, we used Mann–Whitney U-test for patients’ age and categorical variables were analyzed by chi-square test or Fisher’sexacttest. Results: A total of 30 patients presented symptomatic knee effusion at the time of the surgery.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Common Hip Fractures: Evidence Report/Technology
    This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10064 1). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment. This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 184 Treatment of Common Hip Fractures Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10064 1 Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota Investigators Mary Butler, Ph.D., M.B.A. Mary Forte, D.C. Robert L. Kane, M.D. Siddharth Joglekar, M.D. Susan J. Duval, Ph.D. Marc Swiontkowski, M.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Fracture Lower Extremity Part II
    CONTENTS FEMUR SHAFT BOTH BONE SUBTROCHANTERIC TIBIAL PLAFON FRACTURE LOWER FRACTURE ANKLE EXTREMITIES: PART 2 FRACTURE FEMUR FOOT SUPRACONDYLAR FRACTURE FEMUR CALCANEUS PATELLA TALUS WORAWAT LIMTHONGKUL, M.D. 14 JAN 2013 TIBIA LISFRANC’S TIBIAL PLATEAU METATARSAL 1 2 SUBTROCHANTERIC FRACTURE FEMUR A PART OF FRACTURE OCCUR BETWEEN TIP OF LESSER TROCHANTER AND A POINT 5 SUBTROCHANTERIC CM DISTALLY CALCAR FEMORALE FRACTURE LARGE FORCES ARE NEEDED TO CAUSE FRACTURES IN 5 CM YOUNG & ADULT INJURY IS RELATIVELY TRIVIAL IN ELDERLY 2° CAUSE: OSTEOPOROSIS, OSTEOMALACIA, PAGET’S 3 4 SUBTROCHANTERIC FRACTURE FEMUR TREATMENT INITIAL FEMUR SHAFT TRACTION DEFINITE FRACTURE ORIF WITH INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL OR 95 DEGREE HIP- SCREW-PLATE 5 6 FEMUR FRACTURE FILM HIPS SEVERE PAIN, UNABLE TO BEAR WEIGHT 10% ASSOCIATE FEMORAL SUPRACONDYLAR NECK FRACTURE FEMUR FRACTURE TREATMENT: ORIF WITH IM NAIL OR P&S COMPLICATION: HEMORRHAGE, NEUROVASCULAR INJURY, FAT EMBOLI 7 8 SUPRACONDYLAR FEMUR FRACTURE SUPRACONDYLAR ZONE DIRECT VIOLENCE IS THE USUAL CAUSE PATELLA FRACTURE LOOK FOR INTRA- ARTICULAR INVOLVEMENT CHECK TIBIAL PULSE TREATMENT: ORIF WITH P&S 9 10 PATELLA FRACTURE PATELLA FRACTURE FUNCTION: LENGTHENING THE ANTERIOR LEVER ARM DDX: BIPATITE PATELLA AND INCREASING THE (SUPEROLATERAL) EFFICIENCY OF THE QUADRICEPS. TREATMENT: DIRECT VS INDIRECT NON-DISPLACE, INJURY INTACT EXTENSOR : CYLINDRICAL CAST TEST EXTENSOR MECHANISM DISPLACE, DISRUPT EXTENSOR: ORIF WITH VERTICAL FRACTURE: TBW MERCHANT VIEW 11 12 PATELLAR DISLOCATION ADOLESCENT FEMALE DISLOCATION AROUND USUALLY
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Consultation for the Elderly Patient with Hip Fracture
    J Am Board Fam Pract: first published as 10.3122/15572625-11-5-366 on 1 September 1998. Downloaded from CLINICAL REVIEW Medical Consultation for the Elderly Patient With Hip Fracture RichardJ Ackermann, MD Background: This article describes a family physician geriatrician's perspective on the comprehensive management of hip fracture in frail elderly patients. Primary care physicians might be called upon to pro­ vide medical consultation for these patients. Methods: Guidelines were developed by a combination of personal experience in consulting for several hun­ dred elderly patients with hip fracture at a large community hospital, literature review using the key words "hip fractures," "aged," and "aged, 80 and over," and educational presentations for family practice residents. Results and Conclusions: Elderly patients with hip fracture offer a prime opportunity for comprehensive geriatric assessment. Intertrochanteric fractures are almost always treated with internal fixation, whereas femoral neck fractures can be treated by either fixation or by hemiarthroplasty. Hip fracture should be re­ garded as a surgical urgency, and generally operation should not be delayed, even if patients have serious comorbidity. The family physician can be instrumental in preparing the patient for surgery, preventing and treating complications, and assisting in the placement and rehabilitation of patients after hospital dis­ charge. 0 Am Board Fam Pract 1998; 11:366-77.) As the result of an aging population, family physi­ Some hip fractures and the falls that precede cians are increasingly likely to participate in the them are probably preventable. Strategies to de­ care of elderly patients suffering hip fracture. This tect and treat osteoporosis, especially in high-risk copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • What You Should Know About Hip Fractures
    Information O from Your Family Doctor What You Should Know About Hip Fractures What is a hip fracture? surgery. It may involve putting pins, rods, and A hip fracture is a break in the top of your plates into the hip joint. Some hip fractures are upper leg bone near the hip joint, just below treated with a hip replacement. The orthopedic the waist. The type of hip fracture depends surgeon will help decide which surgery is best on which part of the bone breaks. Most hip for you. fractures are caused by a fall in people 65 years or older. People with weak bones, known as What happens next? osteoporosis (OSS-tee-oh-puh-RO-sis), are You will need to work with a physical therapist more likely to break a hip. at home, in the therapist’s office, or in a skilled nursing facility to regain use of your hip. You will What are the symptoms? practice bending, walking, and climbing stairs. The most common symptom is pain in the hip For most patients, your doctor will or groin area. The pain is usually worse when recommend a medicine called a bisphosphonate you try to move the hip. There is a lot of pain (bis-FOSS-fuh-nate). This is taken by mouth. when you walk. Most people cannot walk with It can help lower your chance of another hip a hip fracture. fracture. How is it found? How can hip fractures be prevented? An x-ray can show if the hip is broken and You can prevent falls by talking to your doctor which part of the bone is fractured.
    [Show full text]
  • ACR Appropriateness Criteria Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture
    Revised 2018 American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture Variant 1: Acute hip pain. Fall or minor trauma. Suspect fracture. Initial imaging. Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level Radiography hip Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢ Radiography pelvis Usually Appropriate ☢☢ Radiography pelvis and hips Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips without and with IV Usually Not Appropriate contrast ☢☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ MRI pelvis and affected hip without and Usually Not Appropriate with IV contrast O MRI pelvis and affected hip without IV Usually Not Appropriate contrast O Bone scan hips Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ US hip Usually Not Appropriate O Variant 2: Acute hip pain. Fall or minor trauma. Negative radiographs. Suspect fracture. Next imaging study. Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level MRI pelvis and affected hip without IV Usually Appropriate contrast O CT pelvis and hips without IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips without and with IV Usually Not Appropriate contrast ☢☢☢☢ MRI pelvis and affected hip without and with Usually Not Appropriate IV contrast O Bone scan hips Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ US hip Usually Not Appropriate O ACR Appropriateness Criteria® 1 Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging: Andrew B. Ross, MD, MPHa; Kenneth S. Lee, MD, MBAb; Eric Y. Chang, MDc; Behrang Amini, MD, PhDd; Jennifer K. Bussell, MDe; Tetyana Gorbachova, MDf; Alice S. Ha, MDg; Bharti Khurana, MDh; Alan Klitzke, MDi; Pekka A.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Extremity Fracture Eponyms (Part 2) Philip Kin-Wai Wong1, Tarek N Hanna2*, Waqas Shuaib3, Stephen M Sanders4 and Faisal Khosa2
    Wong et al. International Journal of Emergency Medicine (2015) 8:25 DOI 10.1186/s12245-015-0076-1 REVIEW Open Access What’s in a name? Lower extremity fracture eponyms (Part 2) Philip Kin-Wai Wong1, Tarek N Hanna2*, Waqas Shuaib3, Stephen M Sanders4 and Faisal Khosa2 Abstract Eponymous extremity fractures are commonly encountered in the emergency setting. Correct eponym usage allows rapid, succinct communication of complex injuries. We review both common and less frequently encountered extremity fracture eponyms, focusing on imaging features to identify and differentiate these injuries. We focus on plain radiographic findings, with supporting computed tomography (CT) images. For each injury, important radiologic descriptors are discussed which may need to be communicated to clinicians. Aspects of management and follow-up imaging recommendations are included. This is a two-part review: Part 1 focuses on fracture eponyms of the upper extremity, while Part 2 encompasses fracture eponyms of the lower extremity. Keywords: Eponyms; Fractures; Lower extremities; Imaging Introduction Review: Lower extremity fracture eponyms Eponyms are embedded throughout medicine; they Pipkin fracture can be found in medical literature, textbooks, and Femoral head fractures are relatively uncommon and even mass media. Their use allows physicians to are typically associated with hip dislocations after se- quickly provide a concise description of a complex vere high-impact trauma such as a motor vehicle colli- injury pattern. Eponymous extremity fractures are sion. Femoral head fractures are commonly grouped commonly encountered in the emergency setting and into the Pipkin classification (see Table 1) after the work are frequently used in interactions amongst radiolo- of the orthopedic surgeon Garrett Pipkin in 1957 (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Management in Osteoporotic Hip Fracture
    Mini Review ISSN: 2574 -1241 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2020.24.004063 Current Management in Osteoporotic Hip Fracture Suphot Phruetthiphat1 and Ong-art Phruetthiphat2* 1Phanat Nikhom Hospital, Chonburi 2Department of Orthopedic, Phramongkutklao Hospital and College of Medicine, Thailand *Corresponding author: Ong-art Phruetthiphat, Orthopedic Department, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand ARTICLE INFO Abstract Received: Abbreviations: Published: January 10, 2020 Dynamic Hip Screws; MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging December 20, 2019 ACCP: American College of Chest Physician; IF: Internal Fixation; DHS: Citation: Ong-art Phruetthiphat, Suphot Phruetthiphat. Current Management in Os- Biomed J Sci & Tech Res 24(3)-2020. BJSTR. MS.ID.004063. teoporotic Hip Fracture. Introduction Preoperative Period [12] by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk Osteoporosis is defined as a skeletal disorder characterized Physician should access whether patients take any anticoagu- lant or antiplatelet use and consider stopping them in elective sur- of fracture. Osteoporosis is a devastating disorder with significant gery: American College of Chest Physician (ACCP) clinical practice osteoporotic hip fracture occurring in elderly patient and this is physical, psychosocial, and financial consequences [1]. Generally, guideline recommends stopping antiplatelet drugs for a minimum mainly associated with low energy mechanism; fall from standing administration of oral or IV vitamin K is recommended if reversal of five days before elective surgery [13]. Withholding warfarin and height [2-5]. The incidence of osteoporotic fracture has projected to of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin to permit earlier surgery is increase in worldwide [6-8] and they are associated with morbidity deemed appropriate (recommendation B; evidence level 1++ and is really important and it should be done by multidisciplinary team and mortality [9-11].
    [Show full text]
  • Spine Fracture Prevalence in US Women and Men Aged 40 Years and Older: Results from NHANES 2013-2014
    HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author Osteoporos Manuscript Author Int. Author manuscript; Manuscript Author available in PMC 2020 August 12. Published in final edited form as: Osteoporos Int. 2017 June ; 28(6): 1857–1866. doi:10.1007/s00198-017-3948-9. Spine Fracture Prevalence in US Women and Men Aged 40 years and older: Results from NHANES 2013-2014 Felicia Cosman, MD*,Δ, Helen Hayes Hospital, West Haverstraw, NY, USA and Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, NY, USA John H Krege, MD*, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA Anne C Looker, PhD, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD, USA John T Schousboe, MD, PhD, HealthPartners Institute and Park Nicollet Clinic, HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN 55416, USA Bo Fan, MD, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA Neda Sarafrazi Isfahani, PhD, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD, USA John A Shepherd, MD, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA Kelly D Krohn, MD, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA Peter Steiger, PhD, Parexel International, Waltham, MA USA Kevin E Wilson, PhD, Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA Harry K Genant, MD Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA ΔCorrespondence: Felicia Cosman, MD. ([email protected]). *Contributed equally Author contributions FC, JHK, and ACL contributed to the design of the study, interpretation of the findings, primary drafting of the manuscript and manuscript editing. JTS and KEW contributed to study design, interpretation of the findings, and manuscript editing.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Vertebral Fractures Varies Among Patients According to Hip Fracture Type
    Osteoporos Int (2015) 26:885–890 DOI 10.1007/s00198-014-2887-y ORIGINAL ARTICLE Distribution of vertebral fractures varies among patients according to hip fracture type J. Watt & L. Cox & R. G. Crilly Received: 19 March 2014 /Accepted: 3 September 2014 /Published online: 19 September 2014 # International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2014 Abstract patients with intertrochanteric fractures and those with ver- Summary This study explored the distribution of vertebral tebral fractures alone, respectively, and they were more likely fractures in hip fracture patients. Unlike patients with to have only one vertebral fracture (15 vs. 3, p<0.001; 15 vs. intertrochanteric fractures, those with subcapital fractures 2, p<0.001). The number of vertebral fractures from T11 to were less likely to have vertebral fractures in the T4-T10 L4 and at the T12-L1 peak did not differ among the groups. region of the spine. The dissimilar distribution of vertebral The numbers of fractures at each vertebral level was signif- fractures among patients with intertrochanteric and subcapital icantly correlated only between those with intertrochanteric fractures may indicate different underlying etiologies. fractures and those with vertebral fractures alone (r=0.65, Introduction There are two main types of hip fractures: p=0.009). intertrochanteric and subcapital. Both types can have associat- Conclusion The distribution of vertebral fractures among ed vertebral fractures. In this study, we explored the distribu- patients with subcapital fractures differed from the other tion of vertebral fractures in the two hip fracture populations. fracture groups, which may indicate that subcapital frac- Methods This was a retrospective analysis of a convenience tures and some lumbar fractures have a different under- sample of 120 patients: 40 with subcapital fractures and lying etiology than intertrochanteric fractures and tho- vertebral fractures, 40 with intertrochanteric fractures and racic (T4-T10) fractures.
    [Show full text]
  • High Risk of Hip and Spinal Fractures After Distal Radius Fracture: a Longitudinal Follow-Up Study Using a National Sample Cohort
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article High Risk of Hip and Spinal Fractures after Distal Radius Fracture: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Study Using a National Sample Cohort Hyo-Geun Choi 1,2 , Doo-Sup Kim 3 , Bumseok Lee 3 , Hyun Youk 4,5 and Jung-Woo Lee 3,5,* 1 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang 14068, Korea; [email protected] 2 Hallym Data Science Laboratory, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang 14068, Korea 3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju 26426, Korea; [email protected] (D.-S.K.); [email protected] (B.L.) 4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju 26426, Korea; [email protected] 5 Bigdata Platform Business Group, Wonju Yonsei Medical Center, Yonsei University, Wonju 26426, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-33-741-0114 Abstract: The purpose of the present study was to estimate the risk of hip and spinal fracture after distal radius fracture. Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service—National Sample Cohort were collected between 2002 and 2013. A total of 8013 distal radius fracture participants who were 50 years of age or older were selected. The distal radius fracture participants were matched for age, sex, income, region of residence, and past medical history in a 1:4 ratio with control participants. In the subgroup analysis, participants were stratified according to age group (50–59, 60–69, or ≥70 years) and sex (male or female). Distal radius fracture patients had a 1.51-fold and 1.40-fold Citation: Choi, H.-G.; Kim, D.-S.; Lee, B.; Youk, H.; Lee, J.-W.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonly Missed Orthopedic Injuries
    Commonly Missed Orthopedic Injuries Holly Adams, PA-C Galveston-Texas City VA Outpatient Clinic Missed Orthopedic Injuries • Overlooking orthopedic injuries is a leading cause of medical malpractice claims out of the ED. • Am J Emergency Med 1996. 14(4):341-5. Karcz et al, 1996. • Massachusetts Joint Underwriters Association: Missed fractures comprised 20% (during1980-1987) and 10% (1988-1990) of malpractice claims. • Fractures are 2nd in claim amount and number of cases established against ED physicians. Radiographics Commonly Missed • Wei (Taipei, Acta Radiol 2006) identified specific regions of misinterpretation: • Foot 7.6% 18/238 • Knee 6.3% 14/224 • Elbow 6.0% 14/234 • Hand 5.4% 10/185 • Wrist 4.1% 25/606 • Hip 3.9% 20/512 • Ankle 2.8% 8/282 • Shoulder 1.9% 5/266 • Tibia/fibula 0.4% 1/226 • Total 3.7% 115/3081 Pitfalls of ER X-Rays • Incorrect interpretation (interpretation errors) • Inadequate (suboptimal) images • Over‐reliance on radiography • Inadequate clinical examination Fractures are a Clinical Diagnosis • 1) Mechanism of injury • 2) Findings on physical examination • 3) Age of the patient. • Radiography confirms the diagnosis and provides anatomical detail. • Fractures can be present without radiographic abnormality. Fractures are a Clinical Diagnosis • If a fracture is clinically suspected • but not radiographically apparent, treat the patient as though a fracture were present with • adequate immobilization and follow‐up (e.g., scaphoid fracture, femoral neck fracture). Fractures are a Clinical Diagnosis • Soft tissue injuries may be more significant that the skeletal injury (ligaments, articular cartilage, neurovascular injuries). • Diagnosis by physical exam or imaging studies: MRI, angiography, arthroscopy, stress views.
    [Show full text]