OBC HW1

OBC HW1

by Odmara Barreto Chang -
Number of replies: 4

Background (Importance): Hip fractures in the elderly are the result of low energy trauma. These events are often associated with osteoporosis/low bone mass and other associated medical conditions that may increase the predisposition to falls. There are around 340,000 hip fracture patients per year in the United States. Most of these fractures occur in women older than 65 years. This is a significant problem with an annual worldwide incidence of approximately 1.7 million. The current increase in life expectancy suggests that the number of elderly individuals with chronic health conditions will increase. The number of people older than age 65 years is expected to increase from 37.1 million to 77.2 million by the year 2040. This suggests that the incidence of hip fractures is expected to increase, with an estimated 6.3 million hip fractures predicted worldwide by 2050.  The surgical management of elderly patients with hip fractures is not standard. Even though there is significant evidence of the benefits of surgical repair within 24 hours related to a reduction of morbidity and mortality this is not universally performed among the hospitals in the United States.  

Clinical Intervention: Hip repair within 24 hours 

Background (Critical timing): Many experts advocate repairing hip fractures expeditiously—within 8 to 24 hours from admission to the hospital.  In published series, patients who underwent surgery earlier had lower rates of nonunion, avascular necrosis of the femoral head, urinary tract infections, decubitus ulcers, pneumonia, venous thromboembolism, and death, and better long-term functional status than did those who underwent surgery later. In addition, delaying surgery prolongs the patient's pain and suffering. In a recent prospective cohort study of 1,206 patients, those who underwent surgery within 24 hours had significantly fewer days of severe and very severe pain and shorter lengths of hospital stay. Higher pain ratings in patients with hip fracture are associated with longer postoperative lengths of stay, delayed postoperative rehabilitation, and increased risk of delirium, which increases mortality and complications in elderly hospitalized patients.

Do professional bodies, guidelines or other normative bodies support the use of this intervention? Many hospitals already use 24h as the cutoff. 

To what extent is this evidence-based practice underutilized?  Is this intervention being used in some settings but not generally? Is it available only to some patients defined by socio-economic status, geography, or insurance type? 

Despite the current evidence that supports that hip fracture surgery time is associated with better outcomes, the practice is not universal. Also, there are limitations associated with hospital resources and practices. 

What are the health status consequences of this failure to use this intervention?  In terms of morbidity and mortality? In terms of economic productivity?  Educational attainment? Costs? 

Higher pain ratings in patients with hip fracture are associated with longer postoperative lengths of stay, delayed postoperative rehabilitation, and increased risk of delirium, which increases mortality and complications in elderly hospitalized patients.


In reply to Odmara Barreto Chang

Re: OBC HW1

by Scott Lu -

This is an interesting point.  Given the life-altering potential for hip fractures in the elderly, it is highly desirable to close any gaps in information on the subject, even more so given the point that a higher life expectancy will result in a higher risk of at-risk of elderly individuals for fracture.  I would be interested in the outcome rate in treated individuals and even further perhaps a look at the difference in quality of life between treatment and control.  A concern I have is the ethical consideration of not treating an individual given the proposed benefit of intervention.  I suppose there would be a population that weren’t surgical candidates, however I don’t know how great of a control group that population would represent.


In reply to Scott Lu

Re: OBC HW1

by Odmara Barreto Chang -

Hi Scott,

Yes, there is evidence supporting poor prognosis when surgery is delayed. 

Hip fractures in healthy patients: operative delay versus prognosis. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293:1203-1204.

Early fixation reduces morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with hip fractures from low-impact falls. J Trauma 1995; 39:261-265.

Your points are very valid, I don't think it will be ethical to randomize people to early surgery or late surgery since we already know there is a benefit with early intervention. Surgery is delay sometimes just to optimize the patient but this is not the only reason for delays. Sometimes delays are related to surgeon availability and hospital resources.

In reply to Odmara Barreto Chang

Re: OBC HW1

by Timothy -

Hip fracture management certainly seems like an important topic - but I am a bit unclear as to the extent of practice variation - what percent of patients do not get hip fracture repair within 24 hours? What are the drivers of the delay that have been identified in the literature - are they related to surgeon availability? Co-existent trauma that is more urgent? Are there guidelines supporting <24 hour repair or is there still debate around this topic?

Best,

Tim

In reply to Timothy

Re: OBC HW1

by Odmara Barreto Chang -

Hi Tim,

It will be interesting to know the percentage of patients that do not get hip fracture repair within 24 hours. I don't think anybody has published that. I imagine it varies at different hospitals. The drivers for the delay can be different, the most valid is optimization of the patient, but this is not necessarily the main reason for the delay. Delays can happen because of lack of surgeon, anesthesia or nursing staff availability and lack of hospital resources especially during the weekends (putting other OR cases as a priority). There are recommendations supporting <24 h repair but there are not strict rules at least in the US.  Most experts agreed that surgery should be done early rather than late given the increased morbidity and mortality related to delays.