Diabetes and Risk of Post-Fragility Hip Fracture Outcomes in Elderly Patients

Tian, Wenqing; Wu, Jueli; Tong, Tao; Zhang, Lu; Zhou, Aiguo; Hu, Ning; Huang, Wei; Zhou, Bo

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8146196

International Journal of Endocrinology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Abbreviations Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 8146196 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8146196

Diabetes and Risk of Post-Fragility Hip Fracture Outcomes in Elderly Patients

Wenqing Tian,¹Jueli Wu,¹Tao Tong,¹Lu Zhang,¹Aiguo Zhou,²Ning Hu,²Wei Huang,²and Bo Zhou¹

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Reimondo

Received01 Sept 2019

Revised25 Feb 2020

Accepted17 Mar 2020

Published14 Apr 2020

Abstract

Objective. To explore the effect of diabetes on short-term (30 days after fracture) and 1-year outcomes for fragility hip fracture patients. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 161 diabetic hip fracture patients (older than 60 years) and 483 nondiabetic hip fracture patients. Patients were followed up on day 30 and 1 year after fracture. The short-term outcome was complications that occurred within 30 days after hip fracture and length of stay. The 1-year outcomes were postfracture functional outcomes and reduced activity level and mortality rate within 1 year after fracture. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients were analyzed. Results. Compared with nondiabetic patients, diabetic patients had a longer length of awaiting surgery (6.0 vs. 5.0 days, ) and a longer length of total hospital stay (17 vs. 15 days, ). Furthermore, compared with nondiabetic patients, diabetic patients have higher costs (), in addition to being more prone to developing urinary tract infections (6.2% vs. 1.7%, ) and deep vein thrombosis (4.3% vs. 1.4%, ) complications. However, at one-year follow-up, no differences in recovery of function and mortality were observed between the two groups. Conclusions. Diabetic patients are at an increased risk of urinary tract infections and deep vein thrombosis complications but have similar recovery of function and 1-year mortality compared to nondiabetic patients.

1. Introduction

Osteoporotic hip fractures are frequent in older people and represent a worldwide challenge [1]. Despite the declining trend in the incidence of hip fracture in western populations, some studies conducted in Asia still showed an increase in the age-adjusted incidence rates of hip fractures [2]. More importantly, compelling studies have demonstrated that most older people who have undergone fragility hip fractures have more comorbidities, poorer functional outcomes, and increased 1-year mortality [3, 4]. Nonetheless, data from Asia remain limited.

Diabetes is a worldwide epidemic [5] that is a common comorbid condition in geriatric adults and may complicate recovery from hip fracture [6–8]. Although the association between both type 1 and type 2 diabetes and increased risk of hip fracture is well documented [9–11], a number of issues regarding the effect of diabetes on complications and functional recovery in patients after hip fractures remain to be clarified. It has been demonstrated that the activities of daily living and mobility in elderly diabetic patients following hip fracture are significantly worsened compared to nondiabetics [12]. However, another study found that mobility in elderly hip fracture patients with diabetes is similar to that of nondiabetics at 1 year after injury, while diabetics are at an increased risk of cardiac and pressure ulcers as postoperative complications [13]. The reason for the discrepancy in these studies is not fully understood. However, several studies have indicated that different ages, sexes among groups, the ratio of diabetic patients in the sample, preinjury activity, medical system, and socioeconomic conditions may contribute at least partly to diverse outcomes after injury [4, 14–16]. For example, Martin-Martin et al. found that advanced age is more likely associated with poorer functional recovery following hip fracture [14]. Kristensen et al. reported that after hip fracture, men had a two-fold higher mortality than women [15]. In addition, differences in baseline functional status in older adults with diabetes were associated with outcome differences [16].

To further clarify the relation between diabetes and outcomes after fragility hip fracture, we conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 161 diabetic hip fracture patients and 483 nondiabetic hip fracture patients [17]. Follow-up assessments were done on day 30 and 1 year after fracture. The aim of our study was to explore the effect of diabetes on short-term (30 days after fracture) and 1-year outcomes for fragility hip fracture patients and to determine whether there were any changes that could be made in clinical practice to improve patient recovery in the Chinese population.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving fragility hip fracture patients who attended the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University between June 2013 and July 2016. The patients were categorized into nondiabetic group and diabetic group and were followed up on day 30 and 1 year after fracture. A total of 644 patients were included in the analysis. We prescreened patients according to the following criteria: (1) age ≥60 years and (2) a fall from standing height or less. The following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) high-impact injury, such as traffic accidents, high fall accident, and multiple traumas and (2) patients with pathological fractures.

The patients were classified into two groups according to whether there was diabetes or not. Diabetes was considered to be present when the following criteria were fulfilled at admission: (1) the patient had a diagnosis of diabetes previously established by a diabetologist and (2) HbAlc ≥6.5% and fasting plasma glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (fasting is defined as no caloric intake for at least eight hours), classic symptoms of hyperglycaemia or hyperglycaemic crisis, and a random plasma glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L.

Our study was approved by the ethics review board of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University.

2.2. Baseline Data

We collected the following data from patients’ medical records: (1) demographics, such as age, gender, smoking habits, and alcohol misuse; (2) information related to diabetes (i.e., duration of diabetes and treatment measures); (3) laboratory test results and bone mineral density (BMD), including haemoglobin, serum albumin, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), BMD at the neck of the femur and BMD at the spine; (4) comorbidities, such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiac failure, cerebrovascular disease, kidney disease, respiratory disease, gastrointestinal diseases, cancer, and Charlson comorbidity index; (5) information related to the fracture, i.e., history of previous fracture, mobility of prefracture, type of fracture, time awaiting surgery, and type of surgery; and (6) antiosteoporosis treatment, i.e., patients were prescribed antiosteoporosis medication after hip fracture and patients continued with their treatment by the end of the first year.

2.3. Definitions

Estimated GFR was calculated according to the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations [18]. For baseline registration of prefracture comorbidity, we used the Charlson comorbidity index. The scores range from 0 to 30, with a high score suggesting high comorbidity [19]. Prefracture and postfracture functional outcomes were evaluated using activity levels [20], which were defined as follows: I, normal; II, essentially independent outdoors but needs help with some outside activities; III, independent indoors but always requiring help outdoors; IV, not independent indoors but able to transfer and walk independently; and V, confined to bed or chair and not ambulatory. When there was an occurrence of reduced activity level, we registered the corresponding scores. For example, when someone was from grade I to grade IV, we registered 3.

2.4. Outcomes

Endpoint consisted of two parts: (1) short-term outcomes, i.e., complications that occurred within 30 days after fracture (cardiac diseases, cerebrovascular accidents, pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infections, wound infection, pulmonary embolism, transient delirium, and pressure ulcer), length of stay, total cost, and the course of rehabilitation after surgery (discharge destination and duration of rehabilitation unit); (2) 1-year outcomes, i.e., postfracture functional outcomes and reduced activity level and mortality rate at 1 year after fracture.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Categorical variables are represented as numbers and proportions, and Fisher’s exact test was used to compare proportions. We checked the normality of data by visual inspection of Q-Q plots. The normally distributed continuous variables are expressed as mean (standard deviation), and the differences were tested with Student’s t-test. Nonnormally distributed variables are expressed as median (interquartile range (IQR)). The differences were tested with the Mann–Whitney U test. Rank variables are represented as numbers. The Mann–Whitney U test is used to compare the differences of rank data. All calculated values were 2-tailed, with values <0.05 considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Study Population

A database of 644 individuals was collated including 483 nondiabetic patients and 161 diabetic patients. In the whole cohort, 430 (66.8%) were females and 214 (33.2%) males, with average patient age of 77.9 ± 8.4 years. In the diabetic group there were 44 (27.4%) men and 117 (72.7%) women and the mean age was 77.3 ± 7.6 years in the diabetic group. The average duration of diabetes was 10.6 ± 7.8 years, including 44.8% of insulin therapy, 32.7% of drug therapy, and 22.4% of untreated patients. The diabetic patients showed the following: less smoking, higher serum albumin, lower eGFR, more hypertension, more kidney disease, and longer waiting time for surgery than nondiabetic patients. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, gender, alcohol, haemoglobin, BMD, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbidity (except hypertension and kidney disease), previous fracture, preinjury activity, fracture type, therapeutic regimen, surgical treatment, and antiosteoporosis medication (Table 1).

3.2. Short-Term Outcomes

Postfracture complications that occurred within 30 days after fracture are shown in Table 2. Diabetic patients had significantly higher rates of deep vein thrombosis (4.3% vs. 1.4%, ) and urinary tract infections (6.2% vs. 1.7%, ) compared to the nondiabetic patients. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences between groups for other complications, such as cardiac diseases, cerebrovascular accidents, pneumonia, wound infection, transient delirium, pressure ulcer, and pulmonary embolism.

The mean postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay were significantly longer in the diabetic group than in the nondiabetic group (, ). In addition, total cost per patient in the diabetic group was also higher than that in the nondiabetic group () (Table 2). When looking at the course of rehabilitation after hip fractures, no significant difference in the kind and duration of rehabilitation after hip fracture was found between the patients with or without diabetes.

3.3. 1-Year Outcomes

At 1 year after fracture, of 644 patients, 31 were lost to follow-up and 48 (7.5%) died. We evaluated the ambulatory status and functional activity of the 565 (87.7%) patients who were alive and thus could be followed up at 1 year. However, only 40.9% of the patients were ambulant unaided and 59.1% needed ambulatory aid. No statistically significant difference between the functional activity was found. Moreover, we found that 54.1% patients in the diabetic hip fracture group and 56.3% in the nondiabetic hip fracture group failed to return to their prefracture mobility at 1-year follow-up. However, compared with nondiabetic patients diabetic patients did not have exacerbated decline of functional activity (54.1% vs. 56.3%, ) and did not present with increased 1-year mortality (5.6% vs. 8.1%, ). Data are presented in Table 3.

4. Discussion

Hip fracture in elderly patients is a major health problem that occurs frequently in most countries, resulting in greater mortality, significant disability, reduced quality of life, and even increased 1-year mortality [1, 3, 4, 14]. Compelling evidence has indicated that functional outcomes after hip fracture are variable according to the difference of age, sex, preinjury activity, and comorbid diseases. Diabetes seen as one recognizable, treatable, and preventable comorbid disease in geriatric adults may affect the rehabilitation process of hip fracture. Although more and more studies have confirmed that diabetes, especially type 2 diabetes, significantly increases risk of hip fracture, the characteristics and functional outcomes of diabetic hip fracture patients remain a source of debate. In our study, we partly excluded confounding factors and found that diabetic patients showed the following: less smoking, higher serum albumin, lower eGFR, more hypertension, more kidney disease, longer waiting time for surgery, longer length of hospital stay, and higher costs compared with nondiabetic patients. Furthermore, at 30 days after fracture, diabetic patients had significantly higher rates of urinary tract infections and deep vein thrombosis than nondiabetic patients. However, no differences in functional outcome and 1-year mortality between the groups were found during the study period.

In our study, the number of female patients (66.8%) was significantly greater than that of male patients (33.2%). These results are in line with those of previous studies [21, 22]. Although diabetes was associated with significantly increased risk of hip fracture, a previous meta-analysis reported that the risk of hip fractures is more pronounced in men with diabetes [10]. On the other hand, this outcome is contrary to that of Hothersall’s study [23] which found an increased risk of hip fractures among diabetic women only. Some meta-analysis reported that the association between diabetes and hip fracture risk was similar in both genders [24, 25]. In this study, 161 patients had diabetes mellitus with 117 (72.7%) in women and 44 (27.3%) in men. The reason for the discrepancy may be because of different socioeconomic conditions, geographical differences, or different medical systems.

A variety of complications are often observed in elder patients with hip fracture. However, only a small part of them are operation-correlated complications, such as wound infection and migration and breakage of implants. The most common complications are medical diseases, such as pneumonia, delirium, urinary tract infection, and heart failure. In our study, the most common complications that occurred within 30 days after fracture were pneumonia (4.5%), urinary tract infection (2.8%), and deep vein thrombosis (2.2%). The result was somewhat different from the findings of Roche et al. [26], who found that the three most encountered medical complications were chest infection (9%), heart failure (5%), and urinary tract infection (4%). However, another study reported that the most common nonsurgical complications were delirium (20%), followed by pneumonia (10%) and heart failure (5%) [27]. Complication rates after hip fracture reported in the literature vary considerably. Possible causes of these differences in rates are study design, time to follow-up, the operation time, etc. Furthermore, we found that diabetic hip fracture patients had significantly higher rates of deep vein thrombosis than patients in the nondiabetic hip fracture group. An explanation for the higher incidence could be the longer time awaiting surgery and more comorbidities in diabetic patients. Thus, we should balance the attractions of the probable benefits of postponement against the disadvantages of prolonged discomfort and the possible complications. Urinary tract infections are among the relatively common bacterial infections in elderly patients with hip fractures. Moreover, diabetes is a risk factor for urinary tract infections [28]. Similarly, hip fracture patients with diabetes had a higher rate of urinary tract infection complications in our study. Therefore, it is crucial to assess and identify urinary tract infection symptoms in patients with diabetes.

Mobility was selected as the functional outcome because older patients with hip fractures often have a marked and permanent deterioration in their walking ability [29]. In our study, we found that 54.1% patients in the diabetic hip fracture group and 56.3% in the nondiabetic hip fracture group failed to return to their prefracture mobility at 1-year follow-up. This result is similar to the results of earlier research [30], which found that 42% of patients are incapable of returning to their prefracture mobility and 35% are unable to walk independently during the first year after hip fracture. Surprisingly, in our study, diabetes had no influence on the change in mobility and mortality at 1 year after hip fracture. Identical results have also been declared in a study with a follow-up of 2 years after hip fracture [31]. However, Lieberman et al. demonstrated a poorer functional status following hip fracture in diabetic vs. nondiabetic patients [12]. The reason for the discrepancy may be because of different instruments of functional assessment or different follow-up times. In our study, considering the retrospective design and practicality in follow-up, we used Activity Level scale instead of Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scale. The FIM measures independent performance in self-care, sphincter control, transfers, locomotion, communication, and social cognition. It describes a person’s functional abilities and limitations in activities required for daily living. Thus, proper instruments of functional assessment and long-term follow-up are warranted to better achieve the goal of clarifying the association between diabetes and functional outcomes after hip fracture in elderly patients.

There are some limitations in this study. First, the dataset used in this study was generated from one hospital, limiting its generalizability to other hospitals; therefore, additional large-scale research is needed. Second, due to the retrospective design of our study, we used concise and practical Activity Levels to evaluate functional outcomes. This is a possible determinant of the different outcomes found. Then, some other factors can influence functional outcomes after a fragility fracture, such as poor vitamin D status, BMI, obesity, and income level. Finally, because of the limited sample and time of follow-up, there may be false-negative results on the influence of diabetes on mobility.

5. Conclusion

Compared with nondiabetic patients diabetic patients have more comorbidity, and once hip fracture occurs, they have longer waiting time for surgery, higher costs, and significantly increased risks for developing urinary tract infections and deep venous thrombosis complications. However, diabetic patients do not have worsened functional outcomes and higher 1-year mortality compared to nondiabetic patients. Proper long-term follow-up may be needed to better clarify the association between diabetes and functional outcomes after hip fracture in elderly patients in order to take measures earlier to prevent and treat diabetes.

Abbreviations

BMD:	Bone mineral density
eGFR:	Estimated glomerular filtration rate
CKD-EPI:	Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration
IQR:	Interquartile range
CNY:	Chinese yuan
FIM:	Functional independence measure
BMI:	Body mass index.

Data Availability

All the data needed to achieve the conclusion are presented in this paper. The raw data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

S. Y. Cheng, A. R. Levy, K. A. Lefaivre, P. Guy, L. Kuramoto, and B. Sobolev, “Geographic trends in incidence of hip fractures: a comprehensive literature review,” Osteoporosis International, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 2575–2586, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Cooper, The IOF CSA Working Group on Fracture Epidemiology, Z. A. Cole et al., “Secular trends in the incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures,” Osteoporosis International, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1277–1288, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Auais, S. Morin, L. Nadeau, L. Finch, and N. Mayo, “Changes in frailty-related characteristics of the hip fracture population and their implications for healthcare services: evidence from Quebec, Canada,” Osteoporosis International, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 2713–2724, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Bentler, L. Liu, M. Obrizan et al., “The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 170, no. 10, pp. 1290–1299, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Shaw, R. A. Sicree, and P. Z. Zimmet, “Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030,” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 4–14, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Deutsch, C. V. Granger, R. C. Fiedler et al., “Outcomes and reimbursement of inpatient rehabilitation facilities and subacute rehabilitation programs for medicare beneficiaries with hip fracture,” Medical Care, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 892–901, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. V. Schwartz, “Diabetes mellitus: does it affect bone?” Calcified Tissue International, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 515–519, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Vestergaard, “Discrepancies in bone mineral density and fracture risk in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes-a meta-analysis,” Osteoporosis International, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 427–444, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Fan, F. Wei, Y. Lang, and Y. Liu, “Diabetes mellitus and risk of hip fractures: a meta-analysis,” Osteoporosis International, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 219–228, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Janghorbani, R. M. Van Dam, W. C. Willett, and F. B. Hu, “Systematic review of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk of fracture,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 166, no. 5, pp. 495–505, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. L. Lipscombe, S. A. Jamal, G. L. Booth, and G. A. Hawker, “The risk of hip fractures in older individuals with diabetes: a population-based study,” Diabetes Care, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 835–841, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Lieberman, M. Friger, and D. Lieberman, “Rehabilitation outcome following hip fracture surgery in elderly diabetics: a prospective cohort study of 224 patients,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 339–345, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Norris and M. Parker, “Diabetes mellitus and hip fracture: a study of 5966 cases,” Injury, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 1313–1316, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. Martín-Martín, M. Arroyo-Morales, J. J. Sánchez-Cruz, G. Valenza-Demet, M. C. Valenza, and J. J. Jiménez-Moleón, “Factors influencing performance-oriented mobility after hip fracture,” Journal of Aging and Health, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 827–842, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. K. Kristensen, S. P. Johnsen, A. Mor, T. M. Thillemann, and A. B. Pedersen, “Is the higher mortality among men with hip fracture explained by sex-related differences in quality of in-hospital care? A population-based cohort study,” Age and Ageing, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 193–199, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Blaum, M. B. Ofstedal, K. M. Langa, and L. A. Wray, “Functional status and health outcomes in older americans with diabetes mellitus,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 745–753, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Xu, L. Wang, J. He et al., “Prevalence and control of diabetes in Chinese adults,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 310, no. 9, pp. 948–959, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Levey, L. A. Stevens, C. H. Schmid et al., “A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 150, no. 9, pp. 604–612, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Sundararajan, T. Henderson, C. Perry, A. Muggivan, H. Quan, and W. A. Ghali, “New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 1288–1294, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. O. Mullen and N. L. Mullen, “Hip fracture mortality. A prospective, multifactorial study to predict and minimize death risk,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 280, pp. 214–222, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Finsterwald, E. Sidelnikov, E. J. Orav et al., “Gender-specific hip fracture risk in community-dwelling and institutionalized seniors age 65 years and older,” Osteoporosis International, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 167–176, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Lobo, G. Marcos, J. Santabárbara et al., “Gender differences in the incidence of and risk factors for hip fracture: a 16-year longitudinal study in a southern European population,” Maturitas, vol. 97, pp. 38–43, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. J. Hothersall, S. J. Livingstone, H. C. Looker et al., “Contemporary risk of hip fracture in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a national registry study from Scotland,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1054–1060, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Moayeri, M. Mohamadpour, S. Mousavi, E. Shirzadpour, S. Mohamadpour, and M. Amraei, “Fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and possible risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, vol. 13, pp. 455–468, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Vestergaard, L. Rejnmark, and L. Mosekilde, “Diabetes and its complications and their relationship with risk of fractures in type 1 and 2 diabetes,” Calcified Tissue International, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 45–55, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. W. Roche, R. T. Wenn, O. Sahota, and C. G. Moran, “Effect of comorbidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study,” British Medical Journal, vol. 331, no. 7529, p. 1374, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. R. Flikweert, K. W. Wendt, R. L. Diercks et al., “Complications after hip fracture surgery: are they preventable?” European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 573–580, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hälleberg Nyman, J. E. Johansson, K. Persson, and M. Gustafsson, “A prospective study of nosocomial urinary tract infection in hip fracture patients,” Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 20, no. 17-18, pp. 2531–2539, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bertram, R. Norman, L. Kemp, and T. Vos, “Review of the long-term disability associated with hip fractures,” Injury Prevention, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 365–370, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Nikitovic, W. P. Wodchis, M. D. Krahn, and S. M. Cadarette, “Direct health-care costs attributed to hip fractures among seniors: a matched cohort study,” Osteoporosis International, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 659–669, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Ekström, A. N. Al-Ani, M. Sääf, T. Cederholm, S. Ponzer, and M. Hedström, “Health related quality of life, reoperation rate and function in patients with diabetes mellitus and hip fracture-A 2 year follow-up study,” Injury, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 769–775, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Wenqing Tian et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2722

Downloads

884

Citations