Download Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporotic Fractures

Epidemiology, Diagnosis
Prevention and Management of
Osteoporotic Fractures
Kenneth A. Egol, MD
NYU-Hospital For Joint Diseases
Created March 2004; Revised February 2010
Background
• Osteoporosis -- a
decreased bone density
with normal bone
mineralization
– WHO Definition (2010)1
• Bone Mineral Density ≥2.5
SD’s below the mean seen
in young normal subjects
– Incidence increases with
age 2
• 30% of white women (age
50-70) are osteoporotic
• By the age of 80, 70% are
osteoporotic
1
2
Source: www.nof.org/professionals/WHO_Osteoporosis_Summary.pdf
International Osteoporosis Center: Facts and Statistics
Background
• Risk factors for osteoporosis
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Increasing age
Female sex
Race: Caucasian, Asian
Sedentary lifestyle
Multiple births
Excessive alcohol use
Tobacco use
Background
• Senile osteoporosis common
– Some degree of osteopenia is found in virtually all
healthy elderly patients
• Treatable causes should be investigated
–
–
–
–
–
–
Nutritional deficiency
Malabsorption syndromes (e.g., Celiac Disease, IBD)
Endocrine abnormalities (e.g., hyperparathyroidism)
Cushing’s Disease
Tumors/malignancy (e.g., Multiple Myeloma)
Medications (e.g., corticosteroids)
Background
• The incidence of osteoporotic fractures is
increasing
– Estimated that half of all women and one-third of all
men will sustain a fragility fracture during their lifetime
• By 2050  6.3
million hip fractures
will occur globally
• Costs for
osteoporosis-related
fractures expected to
increase from $19
billion in 2005
$25.3 billion in
2025.
Image courtesy of International Osteoporosis Foundation
Background
• The most common fractures in the elderly
osteoporotic patient include:
– Hip Fractures
• Femoral neck fractures
• Intertrochanteric fractures
• Subtrochanteric fractures
–
–
–
–
Ankle fractures
Proximal humerus fracture
Distal radius fractures
Image courtesy of International Osteoporosis Foundation
Vertebral compression fractures
Background
• Fractures in the elderly
osteoporotic patient
represent a challenge to
the orthopaedic surgeon
• The goal of treatment is
to restore the pre-injury
level of function
• Fracture can render an
elderly patient unable to
function independently -requiring institutionalized
care
Background
• Osteopenia complicates both
fracture treatment and healing
• Internal fixation compromised
– Poor screw purchase
– Increased risk of screw pull out
– Augmentation with methylmethacrylate
has been advocated
• Increased risk of non-union
– Bone augmentation (bone graft,
substitutes) may be indicated
Pre-injury Status
• Medical History
• Cognitive History
• Functional History
– Ambulatory status
•
•
•
•
Community Ambulator
Household Ambulator
Non-Functional Ambulator
Non-Ambulator
– Living arrangements
Pre-injury Status
• Systemic disease
– Pre-existing cardiac and pulmonary disease is
common in the elderly
– Diminishes patients ability to tolerate
prolonged recumbency
– Diabetes increases wound complications and
infection
– May delay fracture union
Pre-injury Status
• American Society of Anesthesiologists
(ASA) Classification
– ASA I- normal healthy
– ASA II- mild systemic disease
– ASA III- Severe systemic disease, not
incapacitating
– ASA IV- severe incapacitating disease
– ASA V- moribund patient
Pre-injury Status
• Cognitive Status
– Critical to outcome
– Conditions may render patient unable to
participate in rehabilitation
•
•
•
•
Alzheimer’s
CVA
Parkinson's
Senile dementia
FRAX
WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool
• Estimates the 10-year patient-specific absolute fracture risk
– Hip
– Major osteoporotic (spine, forearm, hip or shoulder)
• Developed by WHO to evaluate fracture risk of patients from
epidemiological data from USA, Europe, Australia and Japan
• Integrates clinical risk factors as well as BMD (femoral neck)
• Incorporated into NOF treatment guidelines and other country-specific
recommendations
• Restricted to untreated patients
Updated NOF Clinician’s Guide
Incorporation of WHO Algorithm
Previous
NOF Guide (2003)
Initiate treatment in PM
women with:
•T-score ≤-2.0 with no risk
factors
•T-score <-1.5 with ≥1 risk
factors
•Hip or vertebral fracture
New NOF Guide (2008)
Initiate Treatment in PM women and men
age ≥50 with:
•Hip or vertebral fracture
•Other prior fracture and low bone mass
(T-score -1.0 to -2.5)
•T-score <-2.5 (2º causes excl.)
•Low bone mass and 2º causes associated
with high risk of fracture
•Low bone mass AND 10-yr hip fracture
probability ≥3% or 10-yr major OP-related
fracture probability of ≥20%
Hip Fractures
• General principles
– Most common fragility fracture
– With the aging of the American population the
incidence of hip fractures is projected to
increase from 250,000 in 1990 to 650,000 by
2040
– Cost approximately $8.7 billion annually
– 20% higher incidence in urban areas 1
– 15% lifetime risk for white females who live to
age 80 1
1
International Osteoporosis Center: Facts and Statistics
Hip Fractures
• Epidemiology
– Incidence increases after age 50
– Female: male ratio is 2:1
– Femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures
seen with equal frequency
Image courtesy of International Osteoporosis Foundation
Hip Fractures
• Radiographic
evaluation
– Anterior-posterior
view
– Cross table lateral
– Internal rotation view
will help delineate
fracture pattern
Hip Fractures
• Other imaging modalities
– Occult hip fracture
• Technetium bone scanning is a sensitive indicator,
but may take 2-3 days to become positive
• Magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to be
as sensitive as bone scanning and can be reliably
performed within 24 hours
Hip Fractures
• Management
– Prompt operative stabilization
• Operative delay of > 24-48 hours increases one-year mortality
rates
• However, important to balance medical optimization and
expeditious fixation
– Early mobilization
• Decrease incidence of decubiti, UTI, atelectasis/respiratory
infections
– DVT prophylaxis
Hip Fractures
• Outcomes
– Fracture related outcomes
• Healing
• Quality of reduction
– Functional outcomes
• Ambulatory ability
• Mortality (25% at one year for age > 50)
• Return to pre-fracture activities of daily living
Hip Fractures
• Femoral neck fractures
– Intracapsular location
– Vascular Supply
• Primary blood supply to the
femoral head is the deep branch
of the medial femoral
circumflex artery
• Medial and lateral circumflex
vessels anastomose at the base
of the neck
• Blood supply predominately
from ascending arteries (90%)
• Artery of ligamentum teres
(10%)
Hip Fractures
• Femoral neck fractures
• Treatment
– Non-displaced/ valgus impacted fractures
• Non-operative: 8-15% displacement rate
• Operative with cannulated screws
• Complications: Non-union (5%) and osteonecrosis (8%)
Hip Fractures
• Femoral neck fractures
– Displaced fractures should be treated operatively
– Treatment: Open vs. closed reduction and internal
fixation
• 30% non-union and 25%-30% osteonecrosis rate
• Non-union requires reoperation 75% of the time while
osteonecrosis leads to reoperation in 25% of cases
Hip Fractures
• Femoral neck fractures
• Treatment:
– Total Hip Arthroplasty
• Now standard for younger elderly active patients
– Hemiarthroplasty
• Unipolar vs Bipolar
• Can lead to acetabular erosion, dislocation, infection
Hip Fractures
• Femoral neck fractures
• Treatment
– Displaced fractures can be treated non operatively in certain situations
• Demented, non-ambulatory patient
– Mobilize early
• Accept resulting non or malunion
Hip Fractures
• Intertrochanteric fractures
– Extracapsular (well vascularized)
– Region distal to the neck between the
trochanters
– Fracture patterns creating increased
instability
•
•
•
•
Calcar femorale involvement
Posteromedial cortex involvement
Lateral wall involvement
Reverse obliquity pattern or subtrochanteric
extension
– Important muscular insertions
Hip Fractures
• Intertrochanteric fractures
– Treatment
• Generally treated surgically
• Common implants include sliding hip
screw and sliding cephalomedullary rod
• These implants allows for controlled
impaction upon weight bearing
Hip Fractures
• Intertrochanteric fractures
– Treatment
• Primary prosthetic
replacement can be
considered in select cases
with significant comminution
although fixation is much
more common
Hip Fractures
• Subtrochanteric Fractures
– Begin at or below the level
of the lesser trochanter
– Typically higher energy
injuries seen in younger
patients
– Far less common in the
elderly
– Increasingly more common
with long term use of
bisphosphonates (Lenart et
al. NEJM 2008)
Hip Fractures
• Subtrochanteric Fractures
– Treatment
• Intramedullary nail (high rates of
union)
• Plates and screws
Ankle Fractures
• Common injury in the elderly
– Significant increase in the
incidence and severity of
ankle fractures over the last
20 years
• Low energy injuries
following twisting reflect the
relative strength of the
ligaments compared to
osteopenic bone
Ankle Fractures
• Epidemiology
– Finnish Study (Kannus et al)
• Three-fold increase in the number of ankle fractures
among patients older than 70 years between 1970 and
2000
• Increase in the more severe Lauge-Hansen SE-4 fracture
– In the United States, ankle fractures have been reported to
occur in as many as 8.3 per 1000 Medicare recipients
• Figure that appears to be steadily rising.
Ankle Fractures
• Presentation
–
–
–
–
Follows twisting of foot relative to lower tibia
Patients present unable to bear weight
Ecchymosis, deformity
Careful neurovascular exam must be performed
Ankle Fractures
• Radiographic evaluation
– Ankle trauma series
includes:
• AP
• Lateral
• Mortise
– Examine entire length of
the fibula
Ankle Fractures
• Treatment
– Isolated, non-displaced malleolar fracture
without evidence of disruption of syndesmotic
ligaments treated non-operatively with full
weight bearing
– May utilize walking cast or cast brace
Ankle Fractures
• Treatment
– Unstable fracture patterns with bimalleolar
involvement, or unimalleolar fractures with
talar displacement must be reduced
– Closed treatment requires a long leg cast to
control rotation
• May be a burden to an elderly patient
Ankle Fractures
• Treatment
– Irreducible fractures require
open reduction and internal
fixation
– The skin over the ankle is thin
and prone to complication
– Await resolution of edema to
achieve a tension free closure
Ankle Fractures
• Treatment
– Fixation may be suboptimal due to osteopenia
• May have to alter standard operative techniques
• Locked plates, multiple syndesmotic screws
– Reports in literature mixed
• Early studies showed no difference in operative vs non-op
treatment -- with operative groups having higher complication
rates
• More recent studies show improved outcomes in operatively
treated group
– Goal is return to pre-injury functional status
Proximal Humerus
• Background
–
–
–
–
–
Very common fracture seen in geriatric populations
112/100,000 in men
439/100,000 in women
Result of low energy trauma
Goal is to restore pain free range of shoulder motion
Proximal Humerus
• Epidemiology
– Data suggest that fracture of proximal humerus
is the 3rd most common fracture over age 65
– Incidence rises dramatically beyond the fifth
decade in women
– 76% of all proximal humerus fractures occur in
patients older than 60 1
– Associated with
• Frail females
• Poor neuromuscular control
• Decreased bone mineral density
1
International Osteoporosis Center: Facts and Statistics
Proximal Humerus
• Background
– Articulates with the glenoid portion of the
scapula to form the shoulder joint
– Four parts
– Combination of bony, muscular, capsular and
ligamentous structures maintains shoulder
stability
– Status of the rotator cuff is key
Proximal Humerus
• Radiographic evaluation
–
–
–
–
AP
Scapula Y
Axillary
CT scan can be helpful
Proximal Humerus
• Treatment
– Minimally displaced (one part fractures)
usually stabilized by surrounding soft tissues
• Non operative: 91% good to excellent results
Proximal Humerus
• Treatment
– Isolated lesser tuberosity fractures require
operative fixation only if the fragment contains
a large articular portion or limits internal
rotation
– Isolated greater tuberosity associated with
longitudinal cuff tears and require ORIF if
significantly displaced
Proximal Humerus
• Treatment
– Displaced surgical neck fractures can be treated
closed by reduction under anesthesia with Xray guidance
• Anatomic neck fractures are rare but have a high
rate of osteonecrosis
– If acceptable closed reduction is not attained,
open reduction should be undertaken
Proximal Humerus
• Treatment
– Closed treatment of 3 and 4 part fractures have
yielded poor results
– Failure of fixation is a problem in osteopenic
bone
• Locked plating versus prosthetic replacement
Proximal Humerus
• Treatment
– Regardless of treatment all require prolonged,
supervised rehabilitation program
– Poor results are associated with rotator cuff tears,
malunion, nonunion
– Prosthetic replacement can be expected to result in
relatively pain free shoulders
– Functional recovery and ROM variable
Distal Radius
• Background
– Very common fracture
in the elderly
– Result from low
energy injuries
– Incidence increases
with age, particularly
in women
– Associated with
dementia, poor
eyesight and a decrease
in coordination
Distal Radius
• Epidemiology
– Increasing in incidence
• Especially in women
–
–
–
–
–
125/100,000
Peak incidence in females 60-70
Lifetime risk is 15%
Most frequent cause: fall on outstretched arm
Decreased bone mineral density is a factor
Distal Radius
• Radiographic evaluation
–
–
–
–
PA
Lateral
Oblique
Contralateral wrist
• Important to evaluate deformity, ulnar variance
Distal Radius
• Treatment
– Non-displaced fractures may be immobilized
for 6-8 weeks
– Metacarpal-phalangeal and interphalangeal
joint motion must be started early
Distal Radius
• Treatment
– Displaced fractures should be reduced with
restoration of radial length, inclination and tilt
• Usually accomplished with longitudinal traction
under hematoma block
– If satisfactory reduction is obtained, treatment
in a long arm or short arm cast is undertaken
• No statistical difference in method
– Weekly radiographs are required
Distal Radius
• Treatment
– If acceptable reduction not obtained
– Regional or general anesthesia
– Methods
• ORIF
• Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning with
external fixation
Distal Radius
• Treatment
– Results are variable and depend on fracture
type and reduction achieved
– Minimally displaced and fractures in which a
stable reduction has been achieved result in
good functional outcomes
Distal Radius
• Treatment
– Displaced fractures treated surgically produce
good to excellent results 70-90%
– Functional limits include pain, stiffness and
decreased grip
Vertebral Compression Fractures
• Background
– Nearly all post-menopausal women over age 70
have sustained a vertebral compression fracture
– Usually occur between T8 and L2
– Kyphosis and scoliosis may develop
• Markers for osteoporosis
Vertebral Compression Fractures
• Epidemiology
– Estimated that only 1/3 of
vertebral fractures come to
clinical attention – highly
underreported
– Prevalence similar for men
and women age 60-70
– 117/100,000
– A 50 year old white
woman has a 16% lifetime
risk of experiencing a
vertebral fracture
Image courtesy of International Osteoporosis Foundation
Vertebral Compression Fractures
• Background
– Present with acute back pain
– Tender to palpation
– Neurologic deficit is rare
• Patterns
– Biconcave (upper lumbar)
– Anterior wedge (thoracic)
– Symmetric compression (T-L
junction)
Vertebral Compression Fractures
• Radiographic
evaluation
– AP and lateral
radiographs of the
spine
– Symptomatic vertebrae
1/3 height of adjacent
– Bone scan can
differentiate old from
new fractures
Vertebral Compression Fractures
• Treatment
– Simple osteoporotic vertebral compression
fractures are treated non-operatively and
symptomatically
– Prolonged bedrest should be avoided
– Progressive ambulation should be started early
– Back exercises should be started after a few
weeks
Vertebral Compression Fractures
• Treatment
– A corset may be helpful
– Most fractures heal uneventfully
– Kyphoplasty an option
Prevention
• Strategies focus on controlling
factors that predispose to recurrent
fracture
– Consider bone mineral density test
– Rule out secondary causes of
osteoporosis
– Initiate and monitor therapy, or refer
• Fall prevention
Prevention
• Multidisciplinary programs
–
–
–
–
Medical adjustment
Behavior modification
Exercise classes
Controversial
Prevention and Treatment of
Bone Fragility
• Well established link between decreasing
bone mass and risk of fracture
• Prevention/treatment options
Bisphosphonates
-Alendronate (Fosamax ®)
-Risedronate (Actonel ®)
-Ibandronate (Boniva ®)
-Zolendronate (Aclasta ®)
SERMs
- Raloxifene (Evista ®)
Hormone Therapy/Replacement
- Estrogen/progestin
Other
- Calcitonin
Stimulators of bone formation
- rh-PTH (Forteo ®)
Prevention and Treatment of
Bone Fragility
• Estrogen/progestin
– FDA approved for prevention, not treatment of
osteoporosis
– 3-5% bone loss/year with menopause
– Unopposed or combined therapy has been shown to
reduce hip fracture incidence in women aged 65-74 by
40-60% (Henderson et al. 1988)
– However, the Women’s Health Initiative (2009)
concluded reduction in hip fracture not offset by
increased risk of breast & endometrial cancers,
thromboembolism, dementia, and coronary heart
disease
Prevention and Treatment of
Bone Fragility
• Calcium/Vitamin D Supplementation
– Recommended for most men and women >50 years
• Calcium
– Age <50 -- 1,000 mg/day
– Age >50 -- 1,200 mg/day
• Vitamin D
– Age < 50 – 400-800 IU/day
– Age >50 – 800-1000 IU/day
• Combining Vitamin D and calcium supplementation
has been shown to increase bone mineral density and
reduce the risk of fracture
Prevention and Treatment of
Bone Fragility
• Calcitonin
– Inhibits bone resorption by inhibiting osteoclast activity
– Approved for treatment of osteoporosis in women who have
been post-menopausal for > 5 years
• Daily intranasal spray of 200 IU
– Trial demonstrated 33% reduction of vertebral compression
fractures with daily therapy (Chesnut Am J Med 2000)
– Calcitonin is indicated for no longer than 24
months in the United States to prevent “resistance”
Prevention and Treatment of
Bone Fragility
• Bisphosphonates
– Inhibits bone resorption by reducing osteoclast recruitment
and activity
– Bone formed while on bisphosphonate therapy is
histologically normal
• Strongest evidence for rapid fracture risk reduction
– Decreasing the incidence of both vertebral and nonvertebral
fractures
• Recent evidence of increased risk of subtrochanteric
insufficiency fractures with long term use (Lenart et al.
NEJM 2008)
Prevention and Treatment of
Bone Fragility
•
Alendronate
– Shown to increase the bone density in
femoral neck in post menopausal
women with osteoporosis (Lieberman
et al. NEJM 1995)
– Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT)
demonstrated daily Fosamax for 3
years significantly reduced the risk of
vertebral fracture by 47% and of hip
fracture by 51% in women with low
BMD and previous vertebral fracture
(Black et al. Lancet 1996)
– Recently associated with lateral
cortical stress fractures following long
term use.
Prevention and Treatment of
Bone Fragility
• Teriparatide (Forteo)
– Recombinant formulation of
parathyroid hormone
– Stimulates the formation of new
bone by increasing the number
and activity of osteoblasts
– Once daily subcutaneous
injection of 20 g
• Study of 1637 post-menopausal
women
– 65% reduction in the incidence of
new vertebral fractures
– 53% reduction in the incidence of
new nonvertebral fractures
Conclusions
• Prevention is multifaceted: a fragility fracture is
the strongest predictor of a future fracture
• Cost containment is a joint effort between
orthopaedists, primary care physicians, PT and
social work
• Functional outcome is maximized by early
fixation and mobilization in operative cases
• With the increasing population of elderly,
orthopaedic surgeons must be proactive in
secondary prevention of fragility fractures
If you would like to volunteer as an author for
the Resident Slide Project or recommend
updates to any of the following slides, please
send an e-mail to [email protected]
Return to
General/Principles
Index
Recommended Reading
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Turner CH. Biomechanics of bone: determinants of skeletal fragility and bone
quality. Osteoporos Int 13:97–104, 2002.
Kleerekoper M. Osteoporosis prevention and therapy: preserving and building
strength through bone quality. Osteoporos Int 17:1707–1715, 2006.
www.nof.org/professionals/WHO_Osteoporosis_Summary.pdf
Haidukewych GJ, et al. Reverse obliquity fractures of the intertrochanteric
region of the femur JBJS 83A: 643-50, 2001.
Koval KJ, et al. Postoperative weight-bearing after a fracture of the femoral
neck or an intertrochanteric fracture. JBJS 80A: 352-6, 1998.
Baumgaertner MR, et al. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure
of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip JBJS 77A:1058-1064, 1995.
Chan SS, et al. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures in patients receiving long-term
alendronate therapy: imaging features. AJR 2010; 194:1581–1586