Intertrochanteric versus femoral neck hip fractures: Differential characteristics, treatment, and sequelae

被引:128
作者
Fox, KM
Magaziner, J
Hebel, JR
Kenzora, JE
Kashner, TM
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[2] Univ Maryland, Med Syst, Div Orthopaed Surg, Baltimore, MD USA
[3] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dept Psychiat, Dallas, TX USA
来源
JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY SERIES A-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND MEDICAL SCIENCES | 1999年 / 54卷 / 12期
关键词
D O I
10.1093/gerona/54.12.M635
中图分类号
R592 [老年病学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 100203 ;
摘要
Background. More than 220,000 persons 65 years and older fracture a hip every year in the United States. Although hip fractures have been considered as a single, homogeneous condition, there are two major anatomic types of proximal femoral fractures: intertrochanteric and femoral neck. The present study's objective was to determine if the two types of hip Fracture have different patient characteristics and sequelae. Methods. A prospective study of 923 elderly patients admitted to seven Baltimore hospitals for a hip fracture between 1984 and 1986. Results. Patients with intertrochanteric fractures were slightly older, sicker on hospital admission, had longer hospital stays, and were less likely at 2 months postfracture to have recovered activities of daily living than femoral neck fracture patients. Intertrochanteric fracture patients also had higher mortality rates at 2 and 6 months after fracturing. Long-term recovery (1 year) did not differ between fracture type. Conclusions. It appears that intertrochanteric Fracture patients have intrinsic factors (older age, poor health) impacting upon their risk of Fracture and ability to recover. Differences in patient characteristics and sequelae do exist between femoral neck and intertrochanteric hip fracture patients that impact upon recovery.
引用
收藏
页码:M635 / M640
页数:6
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Chevalley T, 1991, Osteoporos Int, V1, P147, DOI 10.1007/BF01625444
[2]   EPIDEMIOLOGY OF OSTEOPOROSIS AND OSTEOPOROTIC FRACTURES [J].
CUMMINGS, SR ;
KELSEY, JL ;
NEVITT, MC ;
ODOWD, KJ .
EPIDEMIOLOGIC REVIEWS, 1985, 7 :178-208
[3]  
Dias J J, 1987, J R Coll Surg Edinb, V32, P303
[4]   THE ASSOCIATION OF AGE, RACE, AND SEX WITH THE LOCATION OF PROXIMAL FEMORAL FRACTURES IN THE ELDERLY [J].
HINTON, RY ;
SMITH, GS .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1993, 75A (05) :752-759
[5]  
Karagas MR, 1996, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V143, P677
[6]  
LAWTON JO, 1983, LANCET, V2, P70
[7]   PREDICTORS OF FUNCTIONAL RECOVERY ONE YEAR FOLLOWING HOSPITAL DISCHARGE FOR HIP FRACTURE - A PROSPECTIVE-STUDY [J].
MAGAZINER, J ;
SIMONSICK, EM ;
KASHNER, TM ;
HEBEL, JR ;
KENZORA, JE .
JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY, 1990, 45 (03) :M101-M107
[8]   PATIENT PROXY RESPONSE COMPARABILITY ON MEASURES OF PATIENT HEALTH AND FUNCTIONAL STATUS [J].
MAGAZINER, J ;
SIMONSICK, EM ;
KASHNER, TM ;
HEBEL, JR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1988, 41 (11) :1065-1074
[9]   SURVIVAL EXPERIENCE OF AGED HIP FRACTURE PATIENTS [J].
MAGAZINER, J ;
SIMONSICK, EM ;
KASHNER, TM ;
HEBEL, JR ;
KENZORA, JE .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1989, 79 (03) :274-278
[10]   Are the etiologies of cervical and trochanteric hip fractures different? [J].
Mautalen, CA ;
Vega, EM ;
Einhorn, TA .
BONE, 1996, 18 (03) :S133-S137