scholarly journals Two methods of evaluating mandibular trabecular pattern in intraoral radiographs and the association to fragility fractures during a 47‐year follow up

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotta Elleby ◽  
Pia Skott ◽  
Grethe Jonasson ◽  
Holger Theobald ◽  
Sven Nyrén ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Trabecular Pattern

scholarly journals POS0163 INCIDENT FRACTURE RISK PREDICTION USING THE FRAGILITY SCORE CALCULATED BY LUMBAR SPINE RADIOFREQUENCY ECHOGRAPHIC MULTI SPECTROMETRY (REMS) SCANS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 294.2-294
Author(s):  
D. Ciardo ◽  
P. Pisani ◽  
F. A. Lombardi ◽  
R. Franchini ◽  
F. Conversano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
Osteoporotic Fractures ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Bone Fragility ◽  
P Value ◽  
T Score ◽  
Caucasian Women

Background:The main consequence of osteoporosis is the occurrence of fractures due to bone fragility, with important sequelae in terms of disability and mortality. It has been already demonstrated that the information about bone mass density (BMD) alone is not sufficient to predict the risk of fragility fractures, since several fractures occur in patients with normal BMD [1].The Fragility Score is a parameter that allows to estimate skeletal fragility thanks to a trans-abdominal ultrasound scan performed with Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) technology. It is calculated by comparing the results of the spectral analysis of the patient’s raw ultrasound signals with reference models representative of fragile and non-fragile bones [2]. It is a dimensionless parameter, which can vary from 0 to 100, in proportion to the degree of fragility, independently from BMD.Objectives:This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Fragility Score, measured during a bone densitometry exam performed with REMS technology at lumbar spine, in identifying patients at risk of incident osteoporotic fractures at a follow-up period of 5 years.Methods:Caucasian women with age between 30 and 90 were scanned with spinal REMS and DXA. The incidence of osteoporotic fractures was assessed during a follow-up period of 5 years. The ability of the Fragility Score to discriminate between patients with and without incident fragility fractures was subsequently evaluated and compared with the discriminatory ability of the T-score calculated with DXA and with REMS.Results:Overall, 533 women (median age: 60 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 54-66 years) completed the follow-up (median 42 months; IQR: 35-56 months), during which 73 patients had sustained an incident fracture.Both median REMS and DXA measured T-score values were significantly lower in fractured patients than for non-fractured ones, conversely, REMS Fragility Score was significantly higher (Table 1).Table 1.Analysis of T-score values calculated with REMS and DXA and Fragility Score calculated with REMS. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQR) are reported. The p-value is derived from the Mann-Whitney test.Patients without incident fragility fracturePatients with incident fragility fracturep-valueT-score DXA[median (IQR)]-1.9 (-2.7 to -1.0)-2.6 (-3.3 to -1.7)0.0001T-score REMS[median (IQR)]-2.0 (-2.8 to -1.1)-2.7 (-3.5 to -1.9)<0.0001Fragility Score[median (IQR)]29.9 (25.7 to 36.2)53.0 (34.2 to 62.5)<0.0001By evaluating the capability to discriminate patients with/without fragility fractures, the Fragility Score obtained a value of the ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80, higher than the AUC of the REMS T-score (0.66) and of the T-score DXA (0.64), and the difference was statistically significant (Figure 1).Figure 1.ROC curve comparison of Fragility Score, REMS and DXA T-score values in the classification of patients with incident fragility fractures.Furthermore, the correlation between the Fragility Score and the T-score values was low, with Pearson correlation coefficient r=-0.19 between Fragility Score and DXA T-score and -0.18 between the Fragility Score and the REMS T-score.Conclusion:The Fragility Score was found to be an effective tool for the prediction of fracture risk in a population of Caucasian women, with performances superior to those of the T-score values. Therefore, this tool presents a high potential as an effective diagnostic tool for the early identification and subsequent early treatment of bone fragility.References:[1]Diez Perez A et al. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019; 31(10):1375-1389.[2]Pisani P et al. Measurement 2017; 101:243–249.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Assessment of fracture risk tools in care home residents: a multi-centre observational pilot study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Ihama ◽  
A. Pandyan ◽  
C. Roffe
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Care Homes ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
Comorbidity Index ◽  
Participant Outcomes ◽  
Study Setting

Abstract Background Fragility fractures are common in care home residents but established tools have not been tested in this population. Aim:To identify the most practicable tool for use. Methods Design Multicentre prospective observational cohort pilot study. Setting: 18 care homes in Boston, UK. Assessments: fragility risk score at baseline with FRAX, QFractureScore, Garvan nomogram, body mass index and TUGT for each participant. Outcomes: falls, fractures, combined falls & fractures. Follow-up; 12 months. Results 217/618 (35%) residents in the 18 care homes were enrolled. 147 (68%) had mental capacity,70 (32%) did not. There were 325 falls and 10 fractures in participants during the study. At the same time there were 1671 falls and 103 fractures in residents not participating in the study. Multiple regression analyses showed that only age had a statistically significant association with falls (χ2(1) = 5.7775, p = 0.0162), fractures (χ2(1) = 4.7269, p = 0.0297) and combined falls & fractures (χ2(1) = 4.7269, p = 0.0297). C-statistics were: falls; FRAX 0.544, BMI 0.610, QFractureScore 0.554, Garvan nomogram 0.579, TUGT 0.656, fractures; FRAX 0.655, BMI 0.708, QFractureScore 0.736, Garvan nomogram 0.712, TUGT 0.590, combined falls and fractures, c-statistics were same as for fractures. Fifty-four participants (25%) died during follow-up. Charlson comorbidity index predicted mortality, R2 = 0.021 (p = 0.034). Conclusions QFractureScore, BMI and Garvan nomogram were good predictors of fractures and combined falls and fractures Only age had statistically significant association with the outcomes. No tool was good predictor of falls.

scholarly journals Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Hawarden ◽  
Clare Jinks ◽  
Waheed Mahmood ◽  
Laurna Bullock ◽  
Steven Blackburn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Delays In Diagnosis

Abstract Summary Four focus groups were conducted with members of the public to identify important areas for future osteoporosis research. Participants identified priorities to increase public awareness of osteoporosis, reduce delays in diagnosis, improve communication between healthcare providers and to improve follow-up and information provision about causes of osteoporosis, medication harms and prognosis. Purpose Patients and the public must be involved in setting research agendas to ensure relevant and impactful questions are prioritised. This study aimed to understand what people living with osteoporosis and fragility fractures felt was important to research, to inform the content of a national survey on research priorities in this area. Methods Focus groups were conducted with members of the public with experience of osteoporosis or fragility fractures. The topic guide was co-developed with a patient and public involvement research user group, and explored participants’ experiences of osteoporosis including diagnosis, management and effect upon their lives, what aspects of their ongoing care was most important to them and what about their care or condition could be improved. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results A total of twenty-three participants were recruited to four focus groups. Analysis identified two main themes: challenges in living with osteoporosis and healthcare services for osteoporosis. Information needs was a further cross-cutting theme. Participants called for increased public awareness of osteoporosis and wanted healthcare services to address conflicting messages about diet, exercise and medication. Participants described long delays in diagnosis, poor communication between primary and secondary care and the need for structured follow-up as important areas for future research to address. Conclusion The findings from this study provide an understanding of research priorities from the perspective of patients and the public, have informed the content of a national survey and have implications for patient education, health services research and policy.

Mid-term follow-up after surgical treatment of fragility fractures of the pelvis

Injury ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (11) ◽  
pp. 2032-2035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Noser ◽  
Michael Dietrich ◽  
Simon Tiziani ◽  
Clément M.L. Werner ◽  
Hans-Christoph Pape ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Fragility Fractures

scholarly journals Isolated Pubic Ramus Fractures Are Serious Adverse Events for Elderly Persons: An Observational Study on 138 Patients with Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis Type I (FFP Type I)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pol Maria Rommens ◽  
Johannes Christof Hopf ◽  
Michiel Herteleer ◽  
Benjamin Devlieger ◽  
Alexander Hofmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Normal Population ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Type I ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Pubic Ramus ◽  
One Year

Background: Fractures of the pubic ramus without involvement of the posterior pelvic ring represent a minority of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). The natural history of patients suffering this FFP Type I has not been described so far. Material and methods: All patients, who were admitted with isolated pubic ramus fractures between 2007 and mid-2018, have been reviewed. Epidemiologic data, comorbidities, in-hospital complications, and one-year mortality were recorded. Of all surviving patients, living condition before the fracture and at follow-up was noted. Mobility was scored with the Parker Mobility Score, quality of life with the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level (EQ-5D-3L), subjective sensation of pain with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Results: A consecutive series of 138 patients was included in the study. There were 117 women (84.8%) and 21 men (15.2%). Mean age was 80.6 years (SD 8.6 years). 89.1% of patients presented with comorbidities, 81.2% of them had cardiovascular diseases. Five patients (4%) died during hospital-stay. Median in-hospital stay was eight days (2–45 days). There were in-hospital complications in 16.5%, urinary tract infections, and pneumonia being the most frequent. One-year mortality was 16.7%. Reference values for the normal population of the same age are 5.9% for men and 4.0% for women. One-year mortality rate was 22.2% in the patient group of 80 years or above and 8.8% in the patient group below the age of 80. The rate of surviving patients living at home with or without assistance dropped from 80.5% to 65.3%. The median EQ-5D-Index Value was 0.62 (0.04–1; IQR 0.5–0.78). Reference value for the normal population is 0.78. Average PMS was 4 and NRS 3. Within a two-year period, additional fragility fractures occurred in 21.2% and antiresorptive medication was taken by only 45.2% of patients. Conclusion. Pubic ramus fractures without involvement of the posterior pelvis (FFP Type I) are serious adverse events for elderly persons. During follow-up, there is an excess mortality, a loss of independence, a restricted mobility, and a decreased quality of life. Pubic ramus fractures are indicators for the need to optimize the patient’s general condition.

scholarly journals Best Practice Framework of Fracture Liaison Services in Spain and their coordination with Primary Care

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Naranjo ◽  
S. Ojeda ◽  
M. Giner ◽  
M. Balcells-Oliver ◽  
L. Canals ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Continuity Of Care ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Fracture Liaison Services ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Practice Framework ◽  
Fracture Liaison

Abstract Summary The coordination of Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) with Primary Care (PC) is necessary for the continuity of care of patients with fragility fractures. This study proposes a Best Practice Framework (BPF) and performance indicators for the implementation and follow-up of FLS-PC coordination in clinical practice in Spain. Purpose To develop a BPF for the coordination of FLS with PC in Spain and to improve the continuity of care for patients with fragility fractures. Methods A Steering Committee selected experts from seven Spanish FLS and related PC doctors and nurses to participate in a best practice workshop. Selection criteria were an active FLS with an identified champion and prior contact with PC centres linked to the hospital. The main aim of the workshop was to review current FLS practices in Spain and their integration with PC. A BPF document with processes, tools, roles, and metrics was then generated. Results Spanish FLS consists of a multidisciplinary team of physicians/nurses but with low participation of other professionals and PC staff. Evaluation and treatment strategies are widely variable. Four desired standards were agreed upon: (1) Effective channels for FLS-PC communication; (2) minimum contents of an FLS clinical report and its delivery to PC; (3) adherence monitoring 3 months after FLS baseline visit; and (4) follow-up by PC. Proposed key performance indicators are (a) number of FLS-PC communications, including consensus protocols; (b) confirmation FLS report received by PC; (c) medical/nursing PC appointment after FLS report received; and (d) number of training sessions in PC. Conclusions The BPF provides a comprehensive approach for FLS-PC coordination in Spain, to promote the continuity of care in patients with fragility fractures and improve secondary prevention. The implementation of BPF recommendations and performance indicator tracking will benchmark best FLS practices in the future.

Improving Follow-Up After Fragility Fractures

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen M. Myrick
Keyword(s):  
Fragility Fractures

scholarly journals Beyond Hip Fractures: Other Fragility Fractures’ Associated Mortality, Functional and Economic Importance: A 2-year-Follow-up.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215145932110589
Author(s):  
Andreas Wiedl ◽  
Stefan Förch ◽  
Alexander Otto ◽  
Leonard Lisitano ◽  
Kim Rau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankle Joint ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Pelvic Ring ◽  
Femoral Fractures ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Rib Fractures ◽  
Fracture Group ◽  
Phone Calls

Background Hip fractures are well researched in orthogeriatric literature. Equivalent investigations for fragility-associated periprosthetic and periosteosynthetic femoral, ankle joint, pelvic ring, and rib fractures are still rare. The purpose of this study was to evaluate mortality, functional outcome, and socioeconomic parameters associated to the upper-mentioned fragility fractures prospectively in a 2-year follow-up. Methods Over the course of a year, all periprosthetic and periosteosynthetic femoral fractures (PPFF), ankle joint fractures (AJ), pelvic ring fractures (PR), and rib fractures (RF), that were treated on a co-managed orthogeriatric ward, were assessed. Parker Mobility Score (PMS), Barthel Index (BI), place of residence, and care level were recorded. After 2 years, patients and/or relatives were contacted by mailed questionnaires or phone calls in order to calculate mortality and reevaluate the mentioned parameters. Results Follow-up rate was 77.7%, assessing 87 patients overall. The relative mortality risk was significantly increased for PR (2.9 (95% CI: 1.5–5.4)) and PPFF (3.5 (95% CI: 1.2–5.8)) but not for RF (1.5 (95% CI: 0.4–2.6)) and AJ (2.0 (95% CI: 0.0–4.0)). Every fracture group except AJ showed significantly higher BI on average at follow-up. PMS was, respectively, reduced on average for PR and RF insignificantly, but significantly for PPFF and AJ in comparison to pre-hospital values. 10.0–27.3% (each group) of patients had to leave their homes permanently; care levels were raised in 30.0–61.5% of cases. Discussion This investigation provides a perspective for further larger examinations. PR and PPFF correlate with significant increased mortality risk. Patients suffering from PPFF, PR, and RF were able to significantly recover in their activities of daily living. AJ and PPFF conclude in significant reduction of PMS after 2 years. Conclusion Any fragility fracture has its impact on mortality, function, and socioeconomic aspects and shall not be underestimated. Despite some fractures not being the most common, they are still present in daily practice.

scholarly journals An Exploration of Current Primary Care Practice Regarding Osteoporosis Assessment Following a Low Trauma Wrist Fracture in people aged 50 years and above in Wellington, New Zealand: A Quantitative Survey

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nikola Florance
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Wrist Fracture ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Osteoporosis Prevention ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Study Results

<p>Osteoporosis remains a major health issue worldwide. The impact of the condition and the fractures that can occur, can have significant debilitating impact and also incur substantial financial costs to healthcare systems. The burden of osteoporosis and the rate of osteoporotic fractures in New Zealand is comparable to other countries such as Australia, the United States and Europe. There is global literature evidence dating back as far as 1960, indicating that a fracture sustained after a simple trip or fall can be an indicator of osteoporosis. There is a need to ensure that fracture patients with a potential osteoporosis diagnosis, receive follow up care for assessment to treat any underlying bone health issue to prevent future fragility fractures, particularly, hip fractures. Due to limited formal literature sources describing the associated New Zealand context, the aim of this research work was to explore current practice for osteoporosis assessment following a fragility wrist fracture in the general practitioner (GP) primary health care setting in Wellington, New Zealand.  A quantitative cross-sectional descriptive survey of Wellington GPs was undertaken for this purpose. The reporting of study results were guided by the recommendations detailed within the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement on reporting observational studies (Vandenbroucke et al., 2014). 35 out of 297 GPs from 60 practices in the Wellington region responded to the survey. When describing the local context in Wellington, New Zealand, study results showed that almost three quarters of Wellington GP survey respondents follow up patients who have sustained a potential fragility wrist fracture. The discharge summary was also shown to be a vital part of the communication process between the tertiary and primary health care sectors, acting as a prompt to the GP for further investigation. The single biggest barrier inhibiting processes to enable timely osteoporosis treatment as perceived by GP survey respondents, was lack of public funding, in particular to support availability of diagnostic Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning.  Other barriers were identified by the GP survey respondents, such as anti-osteoporosis medication side effects, patient compliance to treatment plans and a lack of time within the scheduled consultation to screen patients for osteoporosis. The main educational resources that a large percentage of GP survey respondents independently accessed on a regular basis, were those that were readily available. These included GP guidelines published by “Osteoporosis New Zealand” and possibly other, and online resources such as “Health Pathways” (a best-practice, condition-specific guideline and information resource for primary health care practitioners - https://3d.healthpathways.org.nz). The results also highlighted that most GP survey respondents preferred to take the lead role in the care for patients needing to undergo osteoporosis investigation and treatment. In addition, the GP survey respondents demonstrated a high level of knowledge regarding osteoporosis risk factors.  In summary, this study has identified features of practice with regards to osteoporosis assessment following a fragility wrist fracture in the Wellington region. In addition, this study has also enabled identification of specific areas that could be better supported and resourced to assist GP’s in the prevention of secondary fragility fractures. These include highly visible public health campaigns to raise public awareness of osteoporosis and education to GP’s regarding the available screening tools. A significant finding was also that the GP respondents in this study indicated they considered that an important part of their role was responsibility for osteoporosis prevention and treatment. The study results also highlight that despite funding issues, GP survey respondents view osteoporosis prevention and treatment as best placed in the care of the primary health care sector.  This is the first New Zealand study that has identified and described the local context around current practice for fragility wrist fracture care within the Wellington GP community, establishing important reference points which can be used to support further development and research.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document