Buscar en
Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition) Prognostic factors of good functionality at 12 months of a hip fracture. Maluc A...
Journal Information
Vol. 64. Issue 1.
Pages 57-63 (January - February 2020)
Visits
649
Vol. 64. Issue 1.
Pages 57-63 (January - February 2020)
Original Article
Full text access
Prognostic factors of good functionality at 12 months of a hip fracture. Maluc Anoia study
Factores pronósticos de buena funcionalidad a los 12 meses, de una fractura de cadera. Estudio Maluc Anoia
Visits
...
A. Gamboa-Arangoa,
Corresponding author
agamboa@csa.cat

Corresponding author.
, E. Duasoa, F. Formigab, P. Marimónc, M. Sandiumengea, M.T. Salgadod, E. Escalantea, C. Lumbrerasa, A. Tarridaa
a Unidad Geriátrica de Agudos, Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital de Igualada, Igualada, Spain
b Programa de Geriatría, Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
c Unidad Geriátrica de Agudos, Servicio de Traumatología y Cirugía Ortopédica, Hospital de Igualada, Igualada, Spain
d Servicio de Fisioterapia, Fundación Sanitaria San José, Igualada, Spain
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (3)
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 2. Factors related to maintenance of functionality at 12 months.
Table 3. Predictive factors with maintenance of functionality at 12 months.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Background

Hip fracture usually occurs in frail elderly patients and is associated with an important morbi-mortality in the first year. The objective of the study is to describe the prognostic factors that would allow maintaining functionality at 12 months.

Method

From June 1, 2010 to May 31, 2013, all patients older than 69 years with hip fracture due to bone fragility admitted to the Geriatric Acute Unit of our hospital were included. We define as functional maintenance those patients who have lost between 0 and 15 points in the Barthel Index with respect to the previous to the fracture. Prospective study of bivariate data analysis for related and multivariate prognostic factors for predictive predictors.

Results

271 patients were included, of them, 146 (54.8%), maintained functionality at 12 months and 122 (45.2%) no. Patients who maintain functional status are younger: average age 83.4 vs 85.80 years (p=.002); with better scores in the indexes of: Lawton prior to fracture 4.42 vs 2.40 (p<.001) and Barthel at discharge 34.2 vs. 27.1 (p=.002). There are also differences in the score of the “Geriatric Dementia Scale” 2.59 vs. 3.13 (p=.009), in the score of the “American Society Anesthesiologist”<II 62.2% vs 37.8% (p=.006) and have presented less delirium during hospitalisation 4.7% vs 35.3% (p=.002). In the multivariate analysis they maintained statistical significance, age OR: 1.044 (95% CI: 1.002-1.088) (p=.04) and the Lawton Index OR: 0.869 (95% CI: 0.804-0.940) (p<.001).

Conclusions

Prognostic factors of functional maintenance at 12 months are age and the ability to perform instrumental activities of daily life.

Keywords:
Hip fracture
Acute Geriatric Unit
Older adult
Prognostic factors
Resumen
Antecedentes

La fractura de cadera suele ocurrir en pacientes frágiles de edad avanzada y va asociada a una importante morbimortalidad al al primer año. El objetivo del estudio es describir los factores pronósticos que permitirían mantener la funcionalidad a los 12 meses.

Método

Desde el 1 de junio de 2010 hasta el 31 de mayo de 2013 se han incluido a todos los pacientes mayores de 69 años con fractura de cadera por fragilidad ósea ingresados en la Unidad Geriátrica de Agudos de nuestro hospital. Definimos como mantenimiento funcional a aquellos pacientes que han perdido entre 0-15 puntos en el índice de Barthel respecto al previo a la fractura. Estudio prospectivo de análisis de datos bivariado para los factores pronósticos relacionados y multivariado para los factores pronósticos predictores.

Resultados

Se incluyen 271 pacientes, de ellos, 146 (54,8%), mantienen funcionalidad a los 12 meses y 122 (45,2%) no. Los pacientes que mantienen el estado funcional son más jóvenes: edad media 83,4 vs. 85,80 años (p=0,002); con mejores puntaciones en los índices de: Lawton previo a la fractura 4,42 vs. 2,40 (p<0,001) y Barthel al alta 34,2 vs. 27,1 (p=0,002). También hay diferencias en la puntuación de la «Geriatric Dementia Scale» 2,59 vs. 3,13 (p=0,009), en la puntuación de la «American Society Anesthesiologist»<II 62,2 vs. 37,8% (p=0,006) y han presentado menos delirium durante la hospitalización 4,7 vs. 35,3% (p=0,002). En el análisis multivariado han mantenido significación estadística, la edad OR: 1,044 (IC 95%: 1,002-1,088) (p=0,04) y el índice de Lawton OR: 0,869 (IC 95%: 0,804-0,940) (p<0,001).

Conclusiones

Los factores pronósticos de mantenimiento funcional a los 12 meses son la edad y la capacidad de realizar actividades instrumentales de la vida diaria.

Palabras clave:
Fractura de cadera
Unidad Geriátrica Agudos
Adulto mayor
Factores pronósticos
Full Text
Introduction

Hip fractures are the fragility fractures with the greatest impact on patients and constitute some of the most important socio-health problems in Western countries.1 Of all osteoporotic fractures, approximately 20% are located in the femur. They usually occur in the later stages of life, 80 being the average age of onset. Hip fractures have an in-hospital mortality rate of 4%-8%.2,3 After one year this mortality can reach 25%, and even increase to 40% in the following 2 years.4–9 In addition, hip fracture is a determining factor of functional impairment which often precipitates hospitalisation of these patients and entails high economic costs.4,5 One of the objectives of orthogeriatrics is to ensure that patients, following a fracture of the femur, are able to return to their habitual home and preserve the maximum degree of physical and cognitive independence for as long as possible.

For this reason, the objective of our study was to identify the prognostic factors that allow functional maintenance at 12 months after a hip fracture due to bone fragility (HFBF), after these patients have been attended in an acute geriatric unit.

Materials and methodsStudy design and participants

This is a prospective study performed in the Hospital de Igualada, with a catchment area of 118467 inhabitants corresponding to the Region of la Anoia (Barcelona). The inclusion criteria were: patients over 69 years of age admitted from home, admitted to the acute geriatric unit from the emergency department within a period of 36 months, and who gave their informed consent (in the event of dementia, that of the responsible relative and/or guardian) to participate in this study.

The patients in the sample, recruited prospectively, received an intervention for which the care management of the entire process is the responsibility of the interdisciplinary geriatric team. This intervention is framed within the Therapeutic Hip Fracture Guideline of the Hospital de Igualada, which has been described previously10 and has now been updated in relation to the references; the most relevant aspects have not changed with respect to the reference of Duaso et al.10 such as: emergency department stay <3h, surgical intervention before 48h and direct admission from the emergency department to the acute geriatric unit, among others.

The following variables were collected: demographic (sex, age, marital status, place from which they were admitted, destination on discharge), functionality prior to admission and on discharge (Barthel index [BI],11 Lawton and Brody index,12 gait pattern prior to admission and on discharge (Functional Ambulation Classification),13 cognitive status (Geriatric Dementia Scale (GDS)14; Charlson comorbidity index,15 biochemical parameters (kidney function, TSH, calcium, proteins, albumin). And data on surgical waiting time, fracture site, anaesthetic risk (American Society Anesthesiologist classification [ASA])16; length of hospital stay, presence or otherwise of delirium during admission, complications during admission (infections, anaemia with transfusion requirement, hydroelectrolytic disturbances, cardiovascular decompensation), sensory disturbances, and the presence of medications potentially associated with falls.

To determine the prognostic factors for maintaining functionality at 12 months, we divided the sample into 2 groups; a first group of functional maintenance at 12 months that we considered to be the patients who lost between 0 and 15 points on the BI before the fracture, and a second group termed functional loss at 12 months: patients who had lost 20 or more points on the BI compared to their BI prior to the fracture.

This study was approved by the Bellvitge Hospital Ethics Committee (PR197/13).

Statistical analysis

A bivariate statistical analysis was carried out to identify the factors related to the variables studied. In this analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to study the relationship between a numerical and a categorical variable. The Chi-square test was used to study the relationship between categorical variables, with the correction of the Fisher test. The variables that showed a statistically significant relationship in the bivariate analysis were included in a multivariate analysis model of binary logistic regression, and the variables that did not show statistical significance were eliminated (provided they were not confounding factors) to obtain an optimal prediction model of the variables studied. The discriminatory capacity of the model was evaluated with the area under the curve and the calibration of the model with the Hasmer-Lemeshow test. In all the analyses, p values ≤.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

During the study period, 371 patients were admitted with a diagnosis of HFBF; of whom 5 (1.3%) died during hospital admission. A total of 366 patients discharged from the acute geriatric unit were analysed. The 95 (25.9%) deaths that occurred in the 12-month follow-up were excluded. The initial general characteristics of the 371 patients, finally included in the initial study population, can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics.

  Total (n=371) 
Age
Male  84.7±6.1 
Female  85.2±6.4 
Sex
Male  74 (19.9%) 
Female  297 (80.1%) 
Marital status
Widowed  135 (60%) 
Married  66 (29.3%) 
Single – separated – divorced  24 (10.6%) 
Functional status
Baseline Lawton and Brody's index score  3.5±3.3 
Baseline Barthel Index score  73±28, 
Baseline Functional Ambulation Classification score  4.2±1.2 
Baseline cognitive status (Reisberg GDS)  3.1±2.2 
Comorbidity
Charlson Index  2.3±1.7 
Sensory organs
Reduced visual acuity  122 (54.2%) 
Reduced hearing acuity  118 (52.4%) 
Prognostic factors of maintenance of functionality at 12 months following hip fracture

Functionality was maintained in 148 (54.8%) patients with a mean age of 83.40 years and a 55.6% proportion of females, conversely, it was not maintained in 122 patients (45.2%) with a mean age of 85.80 years and a proportion of females of 44.4%. The comparison of the 2 groups is shown in Table 2. Factors related to maintenance of functionality at 12 months include lower age (p=.002); a better Lawton and Brody index score (p<.001); a better BI score (p=.002); an improved GDS score (p=.009); lower surgical risk according to the ASA classification (p=.006); no delirium during admission (p=.002) and no diagnosis of dementia prior to fracture (p=.046).

Table 2.

Factors related to maintenance of functionality at 12 months.

Variable  Yes (n=148; 54.8%)  No (n=122; 45.2%)  p 
Demographic
Age in years  83.40±6.26  85.80±5.94  .002 
Sex: female, N (%)  124 (55.6)  99 (44.4)  .570 
Marital status
Widowed  49 (51%)  47 (49%)   
Married  38 (69.1%)  17 (30.9%)  .096 
Single/Separated/Divorced  10 (58.8%)  7 (41.2%)   
Admitted from
Home  113 (54.9%)  93 (45.1%)   
Residential home  30 (52.6%)  27 (47.4%)  .641 
Socio-health centre  5 (71.4%)  2 (28.6%)   
Functionality
Baseline Lawton and Brody's index score  4.42±3.41  2.40±2.84  <.001 
Baseline Barthel Index score  75.92±30.78  79.05±21.90  .298 
Barthel Index score on admission  18.83±11.90  15.69±10.88  .102 
Barthel Index score on discharge  34.21±18.55  27.10±15.81  .002 
Baseline Functional Ambulation Classification score  4.21±1.40  4.48±.77  .829 
Functional Ambulation Classification score on discharge  2.03±1.65  1.74±1.61  .318 
Baseline Cognitive Function score (Reisberg's Graus GDS)  2.59±2.15  3.13±1.95  .009 
Comorbidity
Charlson Index  1.90±1.43  2.14±1.32  .074 
Polypharmacy before hip fracture
≥4 drugs  107 (53.2%)  94 (46.8%)  .357 
<4 drugs  40 (59.7%)  27 (40.3%)   
Fracture site
Intracapsular  64 (62.1%)  39 (37.9%)  .058 
Extracapsular  84 (50.3%)  83 (49.7%)   
Anaesthetic risk
ASAII  97 (62.2%)  59 (37.8%)  .006 
ASAIII  50 (45%)  61 (55%)   
Surgical wait time
Days  1.67±.95  1.74±.98  .249 
Surgical wait time (days)
<2 days  75 (56.8%)  57 (43.2%)   
2 days  50 (55.6%)  40 (44.4%)  .606 
3 days  15 (46.9%)  17 (53.1%)   
≥4 days  6 (42.9%)  8 (57.1%)   
Cognitive impairment (dementia)
Yes  39 (45.9%)  46 (54.1%)  .046 
Biochemical parameters
Glomerular filtration rate<60 (MDRD)  56 (49.6%)  57 (50.4%)  .137 
Calcidiol<20ng/ml  104 (54.2%)  88 (45.8%)  .459 
TSH<.55  14 (58.3%)  10 (41.7%)  .810 
Albumin<35  105 (52.8%)  94 (47.2%)  .126 
Hb <13M and <1254 (52.9%)  48 (47.1%)  .661 
In-hospital complications
Anaemia requiring transfusion  51 (48.6%)  54 (51.4%)  .223 
Cardiological/Respiratory  18 (58.1%)  13 (41.9%)  .550 
Hydroelectrolytic  39 (48.1%)  42 (51.9%)  .150 
Infectious  7 (63.6%)  4 (36.4%)  .472 
Delirium  62 (45.6%)  74 (54.4%)  .002 
Length of hospital stay (days)
Mean stay  5.56±2.34  6.01±2.48  .228 

The variables that maintained their statistical significance in the multivariate analysis are younger age OR: 1.044 (95% CI: 1.002–1.088) (p=.042) and increased Lawton and Brody index score OR: .869 (95% CI: .804–.940) (p<.001), with a discrimination capacity of the AUC model (±95% CI): .658 (Table 3).

Table 3.

Predictive factors with maintenance of functionality at 12 months.

Variable  OR (95% CI)a  p 
Age
Per each decrease of one year  1.044 (1.002–1.088)  .042 
Lawton and Brody's Index score (per point)
Per each decrease of one point  .869 (.804–.940)  <.001 

CI: Confidence Interval; OR: Odds Ratio.

Discrimination capacity of the model, AUC (±95% CI): .658 (.594–.723).

Calibration of the model, Hosmer–Lemeshow test: p=.182.

a

OR>1 indicates greater likelihood of maintaining functional capacity, <1 indicates less likelihood.

Discussion

The different studies of patients with HFBF use diverse and heterogeneous measures to determine functional maintenance. In addition, in these studies, functionality is not assessed over the same periods of time after the fracture, and neither are the same levels of previous functionality.17,18 This evidences a disparity of data and outcomes in relation to the maintenance of functionality. It has been considered that variations of 20 points on the BI relate to different health outcomes; including functional capacity.19,20 This is why we decided to choose this value as a benchmark when measuring the maintenance of functionality at 12 months following the HFBF, in the 271 patients studied overall.

It is important to highlight that functional maintenance is very largely due to an appropriate process of functional recovery after the fracture, where rehabilitation programmes, either in rehabilitation units or in home rehabilitation programmes, have proven effective.21–23 Irrespective of this, our objective was to identify the prognostic factors that, together with rehabilitation, would be involved in functional maintenance, 12 months after the HFBF, of the 271 patients studied; they had good, medium or bad functionality prior to the HFBF in relation to the activities of daily living

Of patients who survive an HFBF, less than 80%, with good previous functionality,17 maintain functionality one year on. In our study, 54.8% maintained previous functionality. This is a very good result, as in this case all the patients alive at 12 months following the HFBF had good, medium or poor previous functionality.

As in other similar studies,17,20,24–28 the prognostic factors related to functional maintenance at 12 months following an HFBF, in addition to a younger age, are those that relate to good health status prior to the fracture. Thus the results of this study are in accordance with the study carried out by Fukui et al.,24 with similarities with respect to age, prior health status and greater independence in activities of daily living.

With regard to undertaking activities of daily living, although Fukui et al.24 highlight independence in the bathroom as a strong predictor of functional maintenance. This item is included in the BI, in our case we evaluate the BI overall.

With reference to dementia, the diagnostic criteria (DSM-5 and NIA-AA)29,30 include dependence in activities of daily living. Thus, a diagnosis of dementia, knowing that its prevalence31,32 and degree of severity increase with age, is a factor associated with functional loss after an HFBF.18,25,28 In this study, the absence of dementia in the younger patients is related to functional maintenance during follow-up.

With reference to delirium, Vochteloo et al.26 report that about 50% of patients with an HFBF do not maintain their mobility at one year of follow-up. In their model, delirium and dependence for basic activities of daily living are predictors of not maintaining the mobility prior to the HFBF. In our model, the absence of delirium (geriatric syndrome associated with poor prognosis)33,34 and independence for activities of daily living were a highly relevant factor associated with maintenance of functionality at 12 months following an HFBF.

Finally, in our multidisciplinary care model, a short surgical waiting time, together with early initiation of physiotherapy and occupational therapy, are possibly determining factors for the degree of functional recovery on discharge, which in turn were one of the factors associated with maintenance of functionality at 12 months. It is important to note that patients with greater independence in activities of daily living on discharge achieve better results at 12 months follow-up; this result is similar to that observed in the systematic review conducted by Lim et al.18

It is possible that the promotion and attainment of a higher level of independence in the activities of daily living on discharge, together with the prevention and early detection of delirium are the only factors that could be considered modifiable.

The results obtained in this study support the current recommendations for the care of older patients with HFBF, and show how pre- and post-operative management of these patients, in orthogeriatric units, improves short and medium-term care outcomes.4,35–44

The strengths of our study are: it was conducted in an acute geriatric unit; the sample is a clear representation of geriatric patients, specifically those who require most intervention in specialist units adapted to their needs. We also point out the study's observational and single-centre design as its main limitations. Other limitations could be the lack of face-to-face follow-up and not having collected intermediate events during the follow-up.

Conclusions

In our model we found that the predictive factors for functional maintenance at 12 months following an HFBF are younger age and better ability to perform the instrumental activities of daily living.

Our results are particularly relevant, since they enable us to identify patients at possible risk of loss of functionality and, thus, be able to intervene in factors that can be modified.

Conducting a multi-centre randomised clinical trial would allow the results of this study and others to be validated, and endorse the favourable outcomes of orthogeriatric units, as a validated model for the comprehensive care of elderly patients following an HFBF.

Level of evidence

Level of evidence III.

Funding

This research study has received no specific grants from public sector, commercial or not-for-profit agencies.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Acknowledgements

To Professor Ramón Miralles for his invaluable devotion to managing this study and to Sr. Sergi Mojal for preparing the statistical study.

References
[1]
S.R. Cummings, L.J. Melton.
Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures.
Lancet (London, England), 359 (2002), pp. 1761-1767
[2]
S.-M. Kim, Y.-W. Moon, S.-J. Lim, B.-K. Yoon, Y.-K. Min, D.-Y. Lee, et al.
Prediction of survival, second fracture, and functional recovery following the first hip fracture surgery in elderly patients.
Bone, 50 (2012), pp. 1343-1350
[3]
T. Smith, K. Pelpola, M. Ball, A. Ong, P.K. Myint.
Pre-operative indicators for mortality following hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Age Ageing, 43 (2014), pp. 464-471
[4]
S.C. Mears, S.L. Kates.
A guide to improving the care of patients with fragility fractures, edition 2.
Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil [Internet], 6 (2015), pp. 58-120
[5]
S.K. Nanjayan, J. John, G. Swamy, K. Mitsiou, A. Tambe, T. Abuzakuk.
Predictors of change in “discharge destination” following treatment for fracture neck of femur.
Injury [Internet], 45 (2014), pp. 1080-1084
[6]
I.S. Cenzer, V. Tang, W.J. Boscardin, A.K. Smith, C. Ritchie, M.I. Wallhagen, et al.
One-year mortality after hip fracture: development and validation of a prognostic index.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 64 (2016), pp. 1863-1868
[7]
A. Prestmo, G. Hagen, O. Sletvold, J.L. Helbostad, P. Thingstad, K. Taraldsen, et al.
Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: A prospective, randomised, controlled trial.
Lancet [Internet], 385 (2015), pp. 1623-1633
[8]
C.Y. Henderson, E. Shanahan, A. Butler, B. Lenehan, M. O’Connor, D. Lyons, et al.
Dedicated orthogeriatric service reduces hip fracture mortality.
Ir J Med Sci, (2016), pp. 1-6
[9]
F.J. Tarazona-Santabalbina, A. Belenguer-Varea, E. Rovira-Daudi, D. Cuesta-Peredo.
Orthogeriatric care: improving patient outcomes.
Clin Interv Aging [Internet], 11 (2016), pp. 843-856
[10]
E. Duaso, F. Formiga, P. Marimon, M. Sandiumenge, M.T. Salgado, V. Murga, et al.
Advantages of care for patients with hip fractures in the acute geriatric unit: Hip study Anoia.
Geriatr Gerontol Int, 18 (2018), pp. 407-414
[11]
F.I. Mahoney, D.W. Barthel.
Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index.
Md State Med J, 14 (1965), pp. 61-65
[12]
M.P. Lawton, E.M. Brody.
Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living.
Gerontologist, 9 (1969), pp. 179-186
[13]
M.K. Holden, K.M. Gill, M.R. Magliozzi, J. Nathan, L. Piehl-Baker.
Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness.
Phys Ther, 64 (1984), pp. 35-40
[14]
B. Reisberg, S.H. Ferris, M.J. de Leon, T. Crook.
The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia.
Am J Psychiatry, 139 (1982), pp. 1136-1139
[15]
M.E. Charlson, P. Pompei, K.L. Ales, C.R. MacKenzie.
A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.
J Chronic Dis, 40 (1987), pp. 373-383
[16]
W.D. Owens, J.A. Felts, E.L.J. Spitznagel.
ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings.
Anesthesiology, 49 (1978), pp. 239-243
[17]
T. Alarcón Alarcón, J.I. González-Montalvo.
Fractura osteoporótica de cadera: Factores predictivos de recuperación funcional a corto y largo plazo.
An Med Interna [Internet], 21 (2010), pp. 87-96
[18]
K.K. Lim, D.B. Matchar, J.L. Chong, W. Yeo, T.S. Howe, J.S.B. Koh.
Pre-discharge prognostic factors of physical function among older adults with hip fracture surgery: a systematic review.
Osteoporos Int, 30 (2019), pp. 929-938
[19]
E. Castellano Vela, F. Gómez Pajares, A. Rochina Puchades, M. Gil Egea.
Factores asociados a mejoría funcional y nueva institucionalización en enfermos con intervención rehabilitadora en una unidad de media-larga estancia.
Rev Clin Esp, 210 (2010), pp. 1-10
[20]
J.J. Baztán, J.R. Domenech, M. González, S. Forcano, C. Morales, I. Ruepérez.
Ganancia funcional y estancia hospitalaria en la unidad geriátrica de media estancia del Hospital Central de Cruz Roja de Madrid.
Rev Esp Salud Publica, 78 (2004), pp. 355-366
[21]
C. Closa, M. Mas, S.J. Santaeugènia, M. Inzitari, A. Ribera, M. Gallofré.
Hospital-at-home integrated care program for older patients with orthopedic processes: an efficient alternative to usual hospital-based care.
J Am Med Dir Assoc [Internet], 18 (2017), pp. 780-784
[22]
K. Shigemoto, T. Sawaguchi, K. Goshima, S. Iwai, A. Nakanishi, K. Ueoka.
The effect of a multidisciplinary approach on geriatric hip fractures in Japan.
J Orthop Sci [Internet], (2018),
[23]
M.À. Mas, C. Closa, S.J. Santaeugènia, M. Inzitari, A. Ribera, M. Gallofré.
Hospital-at-home integrated care programme for older patients with orthopaedic conditions: early community reintegration maximising physical function.
Maturitas [Internet], 88 (2016), pp. 65-69
[24]
N. Fukui, Y. Watanabe, T. Nakano, T. Sawaguchi, T. Matsushita.
Predictors for ambulatory ability and the change in ADL after hip fracture in patients with different levels of mobility before injury: a 1-year prospective cohort study.
J Orthop Trauma [Internet], 26 (2012), pp. 163-171
[25]
F.J. Tarazona-Santabalbina, Á. Belenguer-Varea, E. Rovira Daudi, E. Salcedo Mahiques, D. Cuesta Peredó, J.R. Doménech-Pascual, et al.
Severity of cognitive impairment as a prognostic factor for mortality and functional recovery of geriatric patients with hip fracture.
Geriatr Gerontol Int [Internet], 15 (2015), pp. 289-295
[26]
A.J.H. Vochteloo, S. Moerman, W.E. Tuinebreijer, A.B. Maier, M.R. de Vries, R.M. Bloem, et al.
More than half of hip fracture patients do not regain mobility in the first postoperative year.
Geriatr Gerontol Int, 13 (2013), pp. 334-341
[27]
M. De Miguel Artal, O. Roca Chacón, M. Martínez-Alonso, M. Serrano Godoy, J. Mas Atance, R. García Gutiérrez.
Fractura de cadera en el paciente anciano: factores pronóstico de mortalidad y recuperación funcional al año.
Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol [Internet], 53 (2018), pp. 247-254
[28]
K.J. Sheehan, L. Williamson, J. Alexander, C. Filliter, B. Sobolev, P. Guy, et al.
Prognostic factors of functional outcome after hip fracture surgery: a systematic review.
Age Ageing, 47 (2018), pp. 661-670
[29]
G.M. McKhann, D.S. Knopman, H. Chertkow, B.T. Hyman, C.R.J. Jack, C.H. Kawas, et al.
The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease.
Alzheimers Dement, 7 (2011), pp. 263-269
[30]
J. López-Álvarez, L.F. Agüera-Ortiz.
Nuevos criterios diagnósticos de la demencia y la enfermedad de Alzheimer: una visión desde la psicogeriatría.
Psicogeriatría [Internet], 5 (2015),
[31]
M. Prince, R. Bryce, E. Albanese, A. Wimo, W. Ribeiro, C.P. Ferri.
The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis.
Alzheimer's Dement [Internet], 9 (2013), pp. 63-75.e2
[32]
J. Garre-Olmo.
[Epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias].
Rev Neurol [Internet], 66 (2018), pp. 377-386
[33]
E.S. Oh, T.G. Fong, T.T. Hshieh, S.K. Inouye.
Delirium in older persons: advances in diagnosis and treatment.
JAMA, 318 (2017), pp. 1161-1174
[34]
M. Krogseth, T.B. Wyller, K. Engedal, V. Juliebø.
Delirium is a risk factor for institutionalization and functional decline in older hip fracture patients.
J Psychosom Res [Internet], 76 (2014), pp. 68-74
[35]
O. Sletvold, J.L. Helbostad, P. Thingstad, K. Taraldsen, A. Prestmo, S.E. Lamb, et al.
Effect of in-hospital comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older people with hip fracture. The protocol of the Trondheim Hip Fracture trial.
BMC Geriatr, 11 (2011), pp. 18
[36]
P. Saez Lopez, N. Sanchez Hernandez, S. Paniagua Tejo, J.A. Valverde Garcia, M. Montero Diaz, N. Alonso Garcia, et al.
[Clinical pathway for hip fracture patients].
Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol, 50 (2015), pp. 161-167
[37]
C. Stenqvist, C.M. Madsen, T. Riis, H.L. Jorgensen, B.R. Duus, J.B. Lauritzen, et al.
Orthogeriatric service reduces mortality in patients with hip fracture.
Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil, 7 (2016), pp. 67-73
[38]
S.L. Kates, D.A. Mendelson, S.M. Friedman.
Co-managed care for fragility hip fractures (Rochester model).
Osteoporos Int, 21 (2010), pp. S621-S625
[39]
S.M. Friedman, D.A. Mendelson, S.L. Kates, R.M. McCann.
Geriatric co-management of proximal femur fractures: total quality management and protocol-driven care result in better outcomes for a frail patient population.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 56 (2008), pp. 1349-1356
[40]
R.R. Mbchb, M. Sian, C. Mbbs, W.C. Mbbs, F. Racp, G. Naidu, et al.
Innovations in hip fracture care: a comparison of geriatric fracture centers.
J Am Med Dir Assoc [Internet], 15 (2014), pp. 232-233
[41]
C. Gatot, A.C. Chou, T. Howe, W. Yeo, H.C. Chong, J.S.B. Koh.
Predictors for rehabilitation outcome in Asian geriatric hip fracture patients.
J Orthop Surg, 24 (2016), pp. 153-157
[42]
M.A. Fernandez, X.L. Griffin, M.L. Costa.
Management of hip fracture.
Br Med Bull [Internet], 115 (2015), pp. 165-172
[43]
Falls in older people: assessing risk and prevention | Guidance and guidelines | NICE
[44]
Intercollegiate Guidelines Network S. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network SIGN Management of hip fracture in older people.
(2009),

Please cite this article as: Gamboa-Arango A, Duaso E, Formiga F, Marimón P, Sandiumenge M, Salgado MT, et al. Factores pronósticos de buena funcionalidad a los 12 meses, de una fractura de cadera. Estudio Maluc Anoia. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2020;64:57–63.

Copyright © 2019. SECOT
Article options
Tools
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos