Epidemiology and characteristics of femoral periprosthetic fractures : data from the characteristics, outcomes and management of periprosthetic fracture service evaluation (COMPOSE) cohort study.
View/ Open
Published version
Embargoed until: 5555-01-01
Reason: Version not permitted.
Embargoed until: 5555-01-01
Reason: Version not permitted.
Volume
104-B
Pagination
987 - 996
DOI
10.1302/0301-620X.104B8.BJJ-2021-1681.R1
Journal
Bone Joint J
Issue
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe the demographic details of patients who sustain a femoral periprosthetic fracture (PPF), the epidemiology of PPFs, PPF characteristics, and the predictors of PPF types in the UK population. METHODS: This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study including adult patients presenting to hospital with a new PPF between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. Data collected included: patient characteristics, comorbidities, anticoagulant use, social circumstances, level of mobility, fracture characteristics, Unified Classification System (UCS) type, and details of the original implant. Descriptive analysis by fracture location was performed, and predictors of PPF type were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression models. RESULTS: In total, 720 femoral PPFs from 27 NHS sites were included. PPF patients were typically elderly (mean 79.9 years (SD 10.6)), female (n = 455; 63.2%), had at least one comorbidity (n = 670; 93.1%), and were reliant on walking aids or bed-/chair-bound prior to admission (n = 419; 61.7%). The study population included 539 (74.9%) hip PPFs, 151 (21.0%) knee PPFs, and 30 (4.2%) dividing type PPFs. For hip (n = 407; 75.5%) and knee (n = 88; 58.3%) arthroplasty UCS B type fractures were most common. Overall, 556 (86.2%) were treated in the presenting hospital and 89 (13.8%) required transfer for treatment. Female sex was the only significant predictor of fracture type (A/B1/C type versus B2/B3) for femoral hip PPFs (odds ratio 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.91); p = 0.014). Sex, residence type, primary versus revision implant PPF, implant fixation, and time between arthroplasty and PPF were not found to predict fracture type for hip PPFs. CONCLUSION: This multicentre analysis describes patient and injury factors for patients presenting with femoral PPFs to centres across the UK. These patients are generally elderly and frail, comparable to those sustaining a hip fracture. These data can be useful in planning future services and clinical trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):987-996 .
Authors
COMPOSE Study TeamCollections
Language
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Assessing fracture risk in people with MS: a service development study comparing three fracture risk scoring systems
Dobson, R; Leddy, SG; Gangadharan, S; Giovannoni, G (BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2013-03-11)Objectives Suboptimal bone health is increasingly recognised as an important cause of morbidity. Multiple sclerosis (MS) has been consistently associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fracture. Various fracture ... -
Intramedullary nails versus distal locking plates for fracture of the distal femur: results from the Trial of Acute Femoral Fracture Fixation (TrAFFix) randomised feasibility study and process evaluation.
Griffin, XL; Costa, ML; Phelps, E; Parsons, N; Dritsaki, M; Achten, J; Tutton, E; Lerner, RG; McGibbon, A; Baird, J (BMJ Publishing Group, 2019-05-05)Objectives This feasibility study and process evaluation assessed the likely success of a definitive trial of intramedullary fixation with locked retrograde nails versus extramedullary fixation with fixed angle plates for ... -
Interpreting and reporting fracture classification and operation type in hip fracture IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH STUDIES AND ROUTINE NATIONAL AUDITS
Masters, J; Metcalfe, D; Parsons, NR; Achten, J; Griffin, XL; Costa, ML; Lopez, D; Hull, P; Richardson, R; Smith, G (2019-10)