You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Surgeries
  • Review
  • Open Access

31 July 2024

Loss of Independence after Index Hospitalization Following Proximal Femur Fracture

,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Surgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT 06510, USA
2
Department of Surgery, Medical City Plano, Plano, TX 75075, USA
3
Department of Emergency Medicine, HCA, Aventura, FL 33180, USA
4
Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
This article belongs to the Topic Orthopaedic Diseases and Innovative Intervention Strategies, 2nd Volume

Abstract

Purpose: Proximal femur fractures (PFFs) in elderly patients lead to decreased productivity. Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) are non-home destinations for post-discharge disposition. This study aims to evaluate the loss of independence (LOI) following PFFs and examine the economic impact it entails. Method: The literature from various databases was collected and analyzed retrospectively. The inclusion criteria included patients age > 18 years and articles published after 1990. All studies were screened, a PRISMA chart was used to demonstrate the search process, and 24 studies were finally used for review. Results: LOI following PFFs significantly increases with age. Fractures in geriatrics avail a significant amount of post-care resources and had longer lengths of stay. Furthermore, six pre-operative risk factors were identified for non-home disposition, including age > 75, female, non-Caucasian race, Medicare status, prior depression, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients discharged directly to home have lower total costs compared to those discharged to rehabilitation units. Loss of independence increases with advancing age. Conclusions: PFFs can lead to a serious loss of independence among elderly patients. Female gender, advancing age, white population, co-existing morbidities, lack of proper care, post-operative infections, limitation in mobility following surgery, and impaired cognitive function following surgery are the factors that contribute to the decline in the rate of appropriate recovery following surgery. Therefore, these factors could necessitate permanent residence in a nursing facility (IRFs and SNFs), with a direct impact on economic, social, psychological aspects and the healthcare system.

1. Introduction

Proximal femur fractures (PFFs) are common injuries among elderly patients [1]. The etiology of PFFs in orthopedic patients varies between age groups, with geriatric patients tending to suffer from increased risk of falls, frailty, more co-morbidities, and osteoporosis [2]. More than one million fractures of the proximal femur occur worldwide every year, with more than 90% of cases occurring in patients over the age of 50 years [3,4]. Furthermore, it has been predicted that the total worldwide number of femur fractures will exceed 3.94 million in 2025 and 6.26 million in 2050 due to increased longevity and the aging Baby Boomer population [2,3].
The outcomes of PFFs impact patients in various ways, ranging from the loss of productivity, depressive symptoms, and contribution to higher mortality rates [4]. In recent studies, it has been shown that one out of every six geriatric patients needs to permanently move to a nursing facility following a PFF due to a serious loss of independence (LOI), defined as the loss of function and ability to live independently, and the need for external care [2,5].
The management of proximal femur fractures entails a large socioeconomic burden as major costs can result from impaired functional recovery, which leads to the need for prolonged and expensive care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) [6]. Chandra et al. found that long-term hospital care, IRFs, and SNFs were the fastest-growing major spending category from 1994 to 2009 [7]. The direct cost for healthcare from a resulting loss of independence in the first six months post-injury has been shown to be as high as USD 23,000 per isolated limb fracture in the United States [8]. The hip fractures figure is projected to rise to 6.26 million by 2050, with 3.25 million of these in Asia, which is an alarming issue for modern medicine [9].
The objective of this study is to evaluate loss of independence following proximal femur fractures in orthopedic patients and to examine the economic impact it entails.

2. Materials and Methods

For this retrospective study, a systematic search of various databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane and Google Scholar was conducted to obtain the literature on loss of independence and proximal femur fractures from 1990 to August 2023. Reference lists of chosen publications were also searched to collect a wide pool of data. MeSH terms used included “loss of independence”, “proximal femur fracture”, “geriatric patients”, “frailty measures”, “disposition”, “economic impacts” and “psychological impacts”. This study was exempt from institutional board review approval.
The inclusion criteria included patients aged ≥18 years, gender, economic impact, those living at home with a family member or caretaker or living alone or at rehabilitation center at the time of injury, nutritional status, co-morbidities, length of hospital stay, loss of independence, mental health (pre-operatively as well as post-operatively), and mode of deposition, with any kind of proximal femur fracture. In addition, both qualitative and quantitative studies were included.
The exclusion criteria include patients who died during hospitalization, those who did not give consent for the selected study, those transferred to other hospitals due to complications, those with incomplete medical records, types of fracture sustained, histologically confirmed pathological, benign and malignant fractures, studies that did not include age of the patients, economic impact, prior surgical interventions, medication used prior to fracture, and disposition information after surgery.
In this study, our population of interest was geriatric patients. We did not include any intervention in this study as it is a review article. In comparison groups, we compared patients with a disposition to home vs. patients with a disposition to rehabilitation centers (inpatient rehabilitation centers, skilled nursing facility, etc.). The primary outcomes were the economic/financial impacts of the disposition, while the secondary outcomes were the social and psychological impacts of dispositions other than home.
In addition, two authors screened the abstracts independently while being guided by the exclusion and inclusion criteria. The third and fourth authors retrieved the full text if found eligible and resolved the conflicts in order to decrease bias. After a discussion, all the authors reached to a consensus. All articles selected for inclusion in our study comprised data about the geriatric population (Age > 60) with proximal femur fractures and also provided information about the economic, social and psychological impacts of the disposition following index hospitalization and its impact on the patient care and the healthcare system.
In order to select relevant studies, the screening of abstracts was conducted, which returned 43 publications, with 26 publications identified through a search from the primary articles reference lists. After accounting for the exclusion and inclusions criteria, 24 studies in total were included in this study. Approximately 35 min was spent on the review of each article. After extraction, we also conducted a quality assessment on the included studies (Table S1). The risk of bias plots were created using Robvis 0.3.0 [10]. Lastly, a 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram was utilized to demonstrate the search process [11] (Figure 1).
Figure 1. PRISMA FLOWCHART of the included studies.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristics

The average age of the patients was 69.16 years, with most studies focusing on geriatric patients (>65 years and old). Article publication dates ranged from 1990 to August 2023. The sample size of the studies identified ranged from 9 to 250,000 per study. Due to focusing more on the surgical complications of fractures, research regarding the loss of independence following proximal femur fracture and the resulting economic impacts has been very limited.

3.2. Prevalence

Berian et al. conducted a study that included 5077 patients. They concluded that loss of independence significantly increased with age. It occurred in 49.9% of the patients aged 65 to 74 years, 67.3% aged 75 to 84 years, and 83.9% in patients aged 85 years and older. Care needs were observed in 46.0% patients, with almost 30% requiring additional skilled services and 18.2% requiring complete discharge to a destination other than home [5]. Patients experiencing LOI were found to be older and sicker; patients 85 years and older experienced a 4.4-fold increased risk for LOI compared with patients aged 65 to 74 years [5]. Furthermore, a study conducted by Van Der Vliet QMJ et al. included 1074 long bone fracture patients over the age of 65. Almost 878 patients were discharged to 207 various rehabilitation facilities (acute rehabilitation or subacute rehabilitation/skilled nursing facility) and were observed for length of stay (LOS) during their interval at rehabilitation facilities [12]. They concluded that geriatric patients following fractures avail a significant amount of post-care resources and longer LOSs. Different factors such as pre-injury ambulatory aid and pre-existing immobility also influenced their LOS.
The assessment of everyday activities can be conducted by the Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL), a short questionnaire that is utilized to determine an older adult’s level of dependency and whether they need additional care [13]. The measures of functional status include the evaluation of transferring, dressing, making meals, and toileting, as recommended by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. This assessment also identifies elderly adults who are more at risk of functional decline and may benefit from supplemental aid [13]. Kugelman et al. found that over a quarter of the participants who had a lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic fracture continue to use an aid in the long term for ambulation [14]. Similarly, they also found that older age and other factors were found to be associated with the need for extra assistance.
Keswani A. et al. analyzed 106,360 total joint arthroplasty patients (TJA). They aimed to compare the risks of post-discharge adverse events in TJA patients in regard to discharge destination. They found that the most common discharge destinations to be home (70%), skilled nursing facilities (19%), and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (11%). Based on the adverse events, they identified that IRFs and SNFs were associated with higher risk as compared to home discharge [15]. Furthermore, a study conducted by Rondon et al. investigated 43 variables, of which 6 were found to be crucial pre-operative risk factors for discharge disposition other than home. Among these six variables, an age 75 or greater was found to be a significant predictor for patients going to IRFs. Other variables included female gender, non-Caucasian race, Medicare status, history of depression, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index; these were also important determinants for non-home disposition. In addition, any complication during hospitalization led to a higher chance of the patient being discharged to IRFs and SNFs [16]. Franz Muller et al. studied a population in their tenth decade of life, reflecting that the occurrence of proximal femoral fractures results in high post-operative mortality just within the first 6 months (nearly 50%) [17]. Another study in population over 100 years old by J. Moore et al. suggests that the inpatient cost of treating hip fractures in centenarians was 18% above that of hip fractures of any age, with an expected mortality of 71% within 1 year of surgery [18].

3.3. Patient Demographics and Risk Factors

Risk factors for poor recovery that can lead to the need for additional assistant include frailty, advancing age, female gender, functional disability, and cognitive impairment. Poor pre-operative activity has been a crucial risk factor of impaired post-operative function. Further, delay in timely, proper and appropriate surgical intervention for PFF management, i.e., taking >24 h, lack of proper coordination with multi-disciplinary team and lack of proper physiotherapy post-operatively have a direct impact in returning to independence, early mobility and pre fracture living status. Poor mental well-being pre surgery as well as post-surgery may also contribute to poor functional activity [13]. Elderly patients who sustain orthopedic trauma are at increased risks of sustaining a fracture due to increased vulnerability resulting from age-related decline in reserve and function across many physiological systems such as ability to cope everyday stressors. This is due to many aspects such as poor bone quality and low-energy mechanisms [14]. Studies examining discharge to non-home destinations have recognized that frailty significantly increases the risk by 1.5 to a 20-fold [5,13].
Female predominance was more in most of the papers. According to Tim Chesser et al. hip fracture will occur in 1 in 3 women and 1 in 7 men over the age of 50 [9]. In support of this, Nicola Veronese et. al. study showed that worldwide hip fractures occurred in 18% of women and 6% in men [19]. With advancing age one third of women in 80’s will have hip fracture, with white women predominance living at higher altitude [18]. Van Der Vliet et al. study showed that higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (p = 0.048), male sex (p < 0.001) and pre-injury use of an ambulatory device (p = 0.006) were associated with longer hospital stay which increases the post-operative complications as well as mortality rate [12]. A. Morice study showed that Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) (range: 2–12) score was 7.46 ± 2.23 with no association to 3 months mortality whether patient is living at home or not (p < 0.08) [20].

3.4. Deposition after Discharge

The mode of deposition also played a significant role in overall outcome and progress in an individual post-operatively. Studied have reflected that home-based rehabilitation have a significantly better outcome and rapid gain in pre fracture state as compared to institutionalized rehabilitation. Home based rehabilitation have multiple benefit over institutionalized rehabilitation i.e., gain in mobility, functional ability, decrease in length of hospital stay, decrease in cost and lower rate of complications. Lavernia CJ et al. study reflects that the total costs were significantly lower in patients discharged directly to home was lower vs. those sent to the institutional rehabilitation center (USD 2405 V/S USD 13435 with p < 0.001) [21]. Rehabilitation in the 85+ age group was found to be less effective as compared to the age group <84 [22].

3.5. Economic Impact

In a study conducted on orthopedic patients needing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), Rondon et al. found that orthopedic surgeries have become a global massive financial burden. They established that as much as 36% of TKA related expenses occur in the post-operative period, of which 70% represent expenses related to post-acute care facilities. Recently many other studies have consistently shown that IRF stays are still very costly [15]. Lavernia et al. compared patients with primary arthroplasty surgeries and post-discharge economic impact between comprehensive rehabilitation units (CRU) with subsequent home care (HC) and those who returned home with limited care needed. According to their study, total cost was significantly lower in patients discharged directly to home compared to those who were sent to CRU and subsequently received HC (USD 2405 vs. USD 13,435, p < 0.001). They reported that this results in an annual cost of USD 3.2 billion for post-surgical rehabilitation after arthroplasty [21]. Although this data represents the population undergoing TKA, the economic impact can be applied to those with a PFF in need of extended rehabilitation and home care. Furthermore, the percentage of patients in need of this extended care is higher in those with a PFF, amplifying the economic impact. In a study by J. Moore et al., the average inpatient cost of treating hip fractures in centenarians was 18% above that of hip fractures of any age, i.e., EUR 14,898 in Ireland [18]. Kyle T et al. explains the impact of early intervention for hip fractures on total cost. The average cost of the early intervention was USD 49,900 and the average cost of late intervention was USD 65,300 (p = 0.0086) [23]. Furthermore, a study conducted by Ian D Cameron et al. on PFFs showed that the total cost was approximately AUD 10,600 for accelerated rehabilitation and AUD 12,800 for conventional care (p value = 0.186). With the reduction in the length of hospital stay, the post-surgical component was markedly reduced for the accelerated rehabilitation group (AUD 6420 v/s AUD 8870 (p value = 0.138) [24]. Further, the study of Nicola Veronese et al. highlights the increase in the trend of hip fracture incidence globally and the cost required for long-term care (LTCs) facilities. They estimated that between 6% and 60% of people suffer from hip fracture, with costs ranging from USD 19,000 to USD 66,000 [19]. Kyosuke Fukuda et al.’s study showed that Japan’s long-term care insurance system allows elderly people to receive appropriate support in their daily living according to their level of independence and physical and mental functions, which is not present in developed countries in the world [25]. Comparing studies from developed to developing countries, the study of Kyle T. Judd et al. based in the USA showed that the average cost of early intervention per patient was USD 49,900, and the average cost of late intervention per patient was USD 65,300 (p = 0.0086) [26]. R. Aigner et al.’s study based in India showed that the mean total acute care costs per patient was EUR 8853 ± EUR 5676 [27]. These two studies reveal that the average cost of treatment in the USA is 6- to 8-fold higher compared to Indian treatment costs. Furthermore, reoperation in the acute care of PFF patients was associated with a 31% higher rate than the corresponding cost of the primary operation, and according to Tiihonen, reoperation was primarily occurring within the first year after the initial procedure [28]. So, high treatment costs for PFF management will be an economic burden to developed countries in the near future.

3.6. Social and Psychological Impact

Morice et al.’s study in centenarians showed a 36% prevalence of dementia in patients undergoing surgery for PFF [20]. Another study by Tim Chesser et al. on hip fractures provides us with evidence that 30% of patients have dementia prior to surgery and another 20% have impaired cognitive function following a hip fracture episode [9]. Further, a study by Franz Muller et al. on populations in their tenth decade of life showed that dementia was present in 60% of patients prior to surgery who ended up in nursing homes for rehabilitation [17]. Most of the patients with dementia and cognitive impairments pre- or post-PFF surgery significantly guide the health professional in the appropriate selection of the mode of deposition after discharge from hospital [29]. Thus, having dementia and some sorts of cognitive impairment will eventually increase the cost of the total treatment process.

3.7. Loss of Workdays

Andrea Giusti et al.’s study reflects that during the follow-up, both groups showed a significant decline in functional ability (Barthel Index). The home-based rehabilitation (HBR) group had higher Barthel Index scores than the institutional-based rehabilitation (IBR) group at follow-up (p value = 0.007). The Barthel Index score decreased by 10.8% for the HBR group from the pre-fracture level (85.5 ± 23.4) to 12 months (76.2 ± 32.1) and decreased by 25.6% for the IBR group from the pre-fracture level (82.4 ± 22.6) to 12 months (58.92 ± 33.3) [26]. Another study by Kyosuke Fukuda et al. highlights the relationship between staying with co-residents or family members and walking ability 1 week after PFF surgery—the Barthel Index at discharge of the home group vs. hospital-referred group was 75.6 ± 22.7 vs. 58.0 ± 24.6 (p value < 0.01, odds ratios are walking ability one week after surgery 1.9, p < 0.05, staying with co-residents 4.6, p < 0.01) [25]. Suguru Ohsawa et al. suggested that all the patients in the assertive rehabilitation group recovered their ability to walk (FIM score) to some extent, while those in the conventional group did not (Ambulation (FIM): Assertive method (18.29 ± 7.9) v/s Conventional method (9.49 ± 4.3, p-value = 0.00135). At the 6-month follow-up, the FIM score was significantly higher in the patients treated with assertive rehabilitation (p value = 0.0135), which reflects the gain of independence by the patients following surgery [30]. Jean Taillandier et al.’s study reflects that loss of weight bearing and advancing age were the key factors for longer hospital stays and the reason for institutionalization. After 1 year, only 36.6% of the patients had the same level of self-sufficiency as before the fracture [31]. Moreover, Till Berk et al. suggest that a higher BS (Braden Score) increased the odds of developing decubitus by 6.2 times (95% CI 1.5 to 25.7, p < 0.001), which will limit daily activities significantly [32]. Additionally, Tim Chesser et al. emphasize weight bearing without restriction in the immediate post-operative period and the initiation of physiotherapy on the day after surgery, unless contraindicated, for better functional gain and mobility following PFF surgery [9] (Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of studies included for proximal femur fractures and significant outcomes.

4. Discussion

The management of elderly patients who sustain orthopedic fractures is an increasingly relevant topic in current practice. Due to the elderly population growing rapidly in recent years, a larger number of patients are more susceptible to fractures and loss of independence [5,13]. This narrative review aimed to evaluate loss of independence following proximal femur fractures in orthopedic patients as well as examine its economic impact. Proximal femur fractures are known to be a highly prevalent injury in the geriatric population, hence necessitating the understanding of ensuing loss of independence and its financial impact. There is also a major physical impact on the patient, including loss of physical activity and feelings of anxiety and depression. Loss of independence encompasses the inability to perform tasks necessary for survival, personal care such as ADLs, and additional aid with physical activity either at home or in an inpatient rehabilitation facility or skilled nursing facility [13].
This study demonstrates that a PFF has hefty costs associated with surgery, with a large portion needing expensive post-operative care in rehabilitation facilities and nursing facilities due to a loss of functional independence [16]. Patients have even reported selling possessions to pay for expenses incurred during surgery and care needed at rehabilitation facilities, with others having to reach out to friends and family as a source of financial aid [32]. Patients losing independence also resulted in a lack of ability to work or sustain a job, exponentially increasing their financial burden. Proximal femur fractures also place a patient at a higher risk of sustaining another fracture later, also increasing the chances of other infections in the early stages of recovery. Beside this, in later days, it worsens the pre-existing morbid condition, leading to an increase in the rate of morbidity and mortality, mostly within 3–6 months of surgical interventions, which has a direct impact on creating additional costs for the individual [33]. Also, hospital-acquired conditions following orthopedic procedures also contribute to the length of stay and the post-operative disposition to the rehabilitation centers [34].
There is a significant difference in the overall cost of management of PFFs in developed countries as compared to developing ones. Few studies have shown that the average cost of treatment in the overall management of PFFs in developed countries is 6–8-fold higher compared to developing ones. This reflects that the proportional increase in the cost of management of PFFs in developed countries will be a burden in the near future [25,35]. The cost is higher due to the longer hospital stay, which accounts for nearly one-third of the total cost of treatment [35]. Further, rapid intervention for fracture management significantly decreases the burden of higher expenses in treatment. Furthermore, the site of fracture, severity of the fracture and the Charlson Comorbidity Index play a pivotal role in increasing the cost during fracture management. Additionally, cognitive impairment also plays a significant role in increasing the acute care costs [25,35]. Also, according to a few studies, the level of trauma center plays a significant role in the timing of interventions, which impacts the disposition and recovery period for these fractured populations [36,37].
These findings may be best interpreted by considering loss of independence and the need for discharge to a faculty other than home. Previously, it was very common for patients to be discharged to IRFs following surgery due to the safety and assistance they would receive from the staff [13,16]. This notion has recently changed, as surgeons routinely opt against sending their patients to IRFs after surgery due to the increased costs. This creates a fine line of balancing patient needs and safety with increased cost, necessitating a proper analysis of who truly needs this extra care. Additionally, this brings increased attention to “why” some patients experience a loss of independence, including what can be done to prevent this and increase self-motivation among patients. There is a significant gain of functional ability in those populations whose disposition is directly to their home or with their loved ones as compared to those whose disposition is in nursing home setups or institutional rehabilitation centers [15,24,33]. Studies have shown that loss of independence following the surgical management of PFFs is greater in advancing-age populations [5,14,35]. Thus, the importance and need for regular, proper, adequate and timely physiotherapy for rapid gain in the pre-fracture independence state is an increasing trend [33,38]. Future studies should examine these variables and attempt to create risk assessment and stratification tools that may better optimize patients prior to surgery.
This study did have its limitations. We acknowledge that our inclusion and exclusion criteria prevented the assessment of the financial and physical burdens of proximal femur fractures and the loss of independence in other countries. In this narrative review, various heterogenous studies were included and hence the bias of each study was also incorporated. Like other narrative reviews, this study also lacked the explicit criteria for the article selection and hence there was no evaluation of selected articles for validity. Moreover, the studies included in his review were retrospective in nature, so we do not have a consistent measure of frailty.

5. Conclusions

Proximal femur fractures are highly prevalent, with incidence steadily increasing as the Baby Boomer population ages. Female gender, advancing age, white population, co-existing morbidities, lack of proper care, post-operative infections, limitation in mobility following surgery, and impaired cognitive function following surgery are the factors that contributes to the decline in the rate of appropriate recovery following surgery. These fractures can lead to a serious loss of independence among elderly patients and, therefore, could necessitate permanent residence in a nursing facility (IRFs and SNFs). In addition, PFFs have a considerable economic impact on the patient and healthcare system. These findings are crucial and should prompt further investigation into risk factors for loss of independence, as well as discussions with orthopedic patients prior to surgery.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/surgeries5030047/s1, Table S1: Risk of bias assessment using Newcastle-Ottawa Score.

Author Contributions

Study conception and design: H.A.M., A.P., A.S. and K.J.S.; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data: All Authors; drafting of the manuscript: All Authors; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: H.A.M., A.P., A.S., H.K. and K.J.S.; statistical analysis: H.A.M.; study supervision: A.S., K.J.S. and A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose and there are no financial or non-financial interests related to the work submitted.

Abbreviations

Proximal Femur Fractures (PFF), Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs), Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), Loss of Independence (LOI), Comprehensive Rehabilitation Units (CRU), Long Term Care (LTC) facility, Home Care (HC), Home Based Rehabilitation (HBR), Institutional Based Rehabilitation (IBR), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), Length of stay (LOS), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) Pelvic Fracture, Total Joint Arthroplasty (TJA), Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Braden Score (BS).

References

  1. Backer, H.C.; Wu, C.H.; Maniglio, M.; Wittekindt, S.; Hardt, S.; Perka, C. Epidemiology of proximal femoral fractures. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2021, 12, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Becker, N.; Hafner, T.; Pishnamaz, M.; Hildebrand, F.; Kobbe, P. Patient-specific risk factors for adverse outcomes following geriatric proximal femur fractures. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2022, 48, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mosquera, M.T.; Maurel, D.L.; Pavon, S.; Arregui, A.; Moreno, C.; Vazquez, J. Incidence and risk factors in fractures of the proximal femur due to osteoporosis. Rev. Panam. Salud. Publica 1998, 3, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  4. Mittal, R.; Banerjee, S. Proximal femoral fractures: Principles of management and review of literature. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2012, 3, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Berian, J.R.; Mohanty, S.; Ko, C.Y.; Rosenthal, R.A.; Robinson, T.N. Association of Loss of Independence With Readmission and Death After Discharge in Older Patients After Surgical Procedures. JAMA Surg. 2016, 151, e161689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Stoicea, N.; Magal, S.; Kim, J.K.; Bai, M.; Rogers, B.; Bergese, S.D. Post-acute Transitional Journey: Caring for Orthopedic Surgery Patients in the United States. Front. Med. 2018, 5, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chandra, A.; Dalton, M.A.; Holmes, J. Large increases in spending on postacute care in Medicare point to the potential for cost savings in these settings. Health Aff. 2013, 32, 864–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ekegren, C.L.; Edwards, E.R.; de Steiger, R.; Gabbe, B.J. Incidence, Costs and Predictors of Non-Union, Delayed Union and Mal-Union Following Long Bone Fracture. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chesser, T.; Kelly, M. Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly; Elsevier Ltd.: Surgery, UK, 2013; Volume 31, pp. 456–459. [Google Scholar]
  10. McGuinness, L.A.; Higgins, J.P.T. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res. Synth. Methods 2020, 12, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Preferred Reorting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Available online: https://www.prisma-statement.org (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  12. Van Der Vliet, Q.M.J.; Weaver, M.J.; Heil, K.; McTague, M.F.; Heng, M. Factors for Increased Hospital Stay and Utilization of Post -Acute Care Facilities in Geriatric Orthopaedic Fracture Patients. Arch. Bone Jt Surg. 2021, 9, 70–78. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brinson, Z.; Tang, V.L.; Finlayson, E. Postoperative Functional Outcomes in Older Adults. Curr. Surg. Rep. 2016, 4, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kugelman, D.N.; Fisher, N.; Konda, S.R.; Egol, K.A. Loss of Ambulatory Independence Following Low-Energy Pelvic Ring Fractures. Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2019, 10, 2151459319878101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Keswani, A.; Tasi, M.C.; Fields, A.; Lovy, A.J.; Moucha, C.S.; Bozic, K.J. Discharge Destination After Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Postdischarge Outcomes, Placement Risk Factors, and Recent Trends. J. Arthroplasty 2016, 31, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rondon, A.J.; Tan, T.L.; Greenky, M.R.; Goswami, K.; Shohat, N.; Phillips, J.L.; Purtill, J.J. Who Goes to Inpatient Rehabilitation or Skilled Nursing Facilities Unexpectedly Following Total Knee Arthroplasty? J. Arthroplasty 2018, 33, 1348–1351.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Müller, F.; Galler, M.; Zellner, M.; Bäuml, C.; Füchtmeier, B. The fate of proximal femoral fractures in the 10th decade of life: An analysis of 117 consecutive patients. Injury 2015, 46, 1983–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moore, J.; Carmody, O.; Carey, B.; Harty, J.A.; Reidy, D. The cost and mortality of hip fractures in centenarians. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2017, 186, 961–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Veronese, N.; Maggi, S. Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture. Injury 2018, 49, 1458–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Morice, A.; Reina, N.; Gracia, G.; Bonnevialle, P.; Laffosse, J.M.; Wytrykowski, K.; Cavaignac, E.; Bonnevialle, N. Proximal femoral fractures in centenarians. A retrospective analysis of 39 patients. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2017, 103, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lavernia, C.J.; D’Apuzzo, M.R.; Hernandez, V.H.; Lee, D.J.; Rossi, M.D. Postdischarge costs in arthroplasty surgery. J. Arthroplasty 2006, 21 (Suppl. 2), 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lieberman, D.; Lieberman, D. Rehabilitation after proximal femur fracture surgery in the oldest old. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002, 83, 1360–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Judd, K.T.; Christianson, E. Expedited Operative Care Of Hip Fractures Results In Significantly Lower Cost Of Treatment. Iowa Orthop. J. 2015, 35, 62–64. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Cameron, I.D.; Lyle, D.M.; Qujnb, S. Epidemiology Health Services Evaluation Branch, N.S.W. Health Department, Locked Bag 961. J. Cttn. Epidemiol. 1994, 47. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fukuda, K.; Amari, T.; Yoshino, K.; Izumiya, H.; Yamaguchi, K. Influence of patients’ walking ability at one-week post-proximal femur fracture surgery on the choice of discharge destination in Japan. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2022, 34, 791–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Giusti, A.; Barone, A.; Oliveri, M.; Pizzonia, M.; Razzano, M.; Palummeri, E.; Pioli, G. An Analysis of the Feasibility of Home Rehabilitation Among Elderly People With Proximal Femoral Fractures. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2006, 87, 826–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Aigner, R.M.F.T.; Meier Fedeler, T.; Eschbach, D.; Hack, J.; Bliemel, C.; Ruchholtz, S.; Bücking, B. Patient factors associated with increased acute care costs of hip fractures: A detailed analysis of 402 patients. Arch. Osteoporos. 2016, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tiihonen, R.; Alaranta, R.; Helkamaa, T.; Nurmi-Lüthje, I.; Kaukonen, J.P.; Lüthje, P. A 10-Year Retrospective Study of 490 Hip Fracture Patients: Reoperations, Direct Medical Costs, and Survival. Scand. J. Surg. 2019, 108, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Singaram, S.; Naidoo, M. The physical, psychological and social impact of long bone fractures on adults: A review. Afr. J. Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2019, 11, e1–e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ohsawa, S.; Miura, A.; Yagyu, M.; Oizumi, A.; Yamada, E. Asserive rehabilitation for intracapsular fracture of the proximal femur. Clin. Rehabil. 2007, 21, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Taillandier, J.; Langue, F.; Alemanni, M.; Taillandier-Heriche, E. Mortality and functional outcomes of pelvic insufficiency fractures in older patients. Jt. Bone Spine 2003, 70, 287–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Berk, T.; Thalmann, M.; Jensen, K.O.; Schwarzenberg, P.; Jukema, G.N.; Pape, H.C.; Halvachizadeh, S. Implementation of a novel nursing assessment tool in geriatric trauma patients with proximal femur fractures. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0284320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  33. Amling, M.; Oheim, R.; Barvencik, F. A holistic hip fracture approach: Individualized diagnosis and treatment after surgery. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2014, 40, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Pearl, A.; Crespi, Z.; Ismail, A.; Daher, M.; Hasan, A.; Awad, M.; Maqsood, H.; Saleh, K.J. Hospital Acquired Conditions Following Spinal Surgery: Epidemiology and Risk Factors. Front. Med. Health Res. 2023, 5, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schurch, M.A.; Rizzoli, I.R.; Mermillod, B.; Vasey, H.; Michel, J.P.; Bonjour, J.P. A Prospective Study on Socioeconomic Aspects of Fracture of the Proximal Femur. J. Bone Miner. Res. 1996, 11, 1935–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gleich, J.; Neuerburg, C.; Schoeneberg, C.; Knobe, M.; Böcker, W.; Rascher, K.; Fleischhacker, E.; Working Committee on Geriatric Trauma Registry of the German Trauma Society (DGU). Time to surgery after proximal femur fracture in geriatric patients depends on hospital size and provided level of care: Analysis of the Registry for Geriatric Trauma (ATR-DGU). Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2023, 49, 1827–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Simunovic, N.; Devereaux, P.J.; Bhandari, M. Surgery for hip fractures: Does surgical delay affect outcomes. Indian J. Orthop. 2011, 45, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tiwari, N.; Patil, S.; Popalbhat, R. Efficacy of Physiotherapy Rehabilitation for Proximal Femur Fracture. Cureus 2022, 14, e30711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.