Advertisement

Paradigm shift in geriatric fracture treatment

  • Pol Maria RommensEmail author
Review Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

The number of geriatric patients is increasing. These patients exhibit specific characteristics, which influence the type of fracture care. Many patients have comorbidities, which make them more vulnerable to surgical procedures. The soft tissue envelope around the fracture often is compromised due to pre-existing diseases such as diabetes, chronic venous insufficiency or peripheral vascular disease. Bone mineral density has decreased, which enhances the risk of implant loosening. The goals of treatment differ from those, which are valid for younger adults. Primary goal is preserving independency of the elderly patient in his activities of daily life. Advantages and drawbacks of surgical procedures have to be balanced with those of conservative treatment. Fractures of the lower extremities will more often need surgical treatment than fractures of the upper extremities. Patient´s autonomy is best obtained by creating high stability in the fracture plane, which enables motion and weight-bearing. Second priority is prevention of general and local post-operative complications by the use of less invasive surgical procedures. Restoring anatomy and optimal function are less important goals. The implants, which are used, are inserted through small incisions, placed deep under the skin and use long anatomic or osseous corridors. Intramedullary devices have important advantages. This paradigm shift takes the special challenges and requirements of geriatric patients into account.

Keywords

Geriatric patient Geriatric fracture Osteoporosis Stability Less invasive surgery Mobility Comorbidities Soft tissues 

Notes

Funding

There was no funding for this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

He has is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval is not applicable for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not applicable for this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Nikkel LE, Fox EJ, Black KP, Davis C, Andersen L, Hollenbeak CS. Impact of comorbidities on hospitalization costs following hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McMahon DJ, Shapiro MB, Kauder DR. The injured elderly in the trauma intensive care unit. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80:1005–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jönsson B, Kanis JA. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8:136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Watts NB. The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®): applications in clinical practice. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20(4):525–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dachverband Osteologie eV, Prophylaxe. Diagnostik und Therapie der Osteoporose bei postmenopausalen Frauen und bei Männern. Version 2017. Langfassung. AWMF-Register-Nr. 183/001, 216 pages.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng SY, Levy AR, Lefaivre KA, Guy P, Kuramoto L, Sobolev B. Geographic trends in incidence of hip fractures: a comprehensive literature review. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(10):2575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rommens PM, Hofmann A. Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: Recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury. 2013;44(12):1733–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andrich S, Haastert B, Neuhaus E, Neidert K, Arend W, Ohmann C, Grebe J, Vogt A, Jungbluth P, Thelen S, Windolf J, Icks A. Excess mortality after pelvic fractures among older people. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32(9):1789–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heim UFA. Das Phänomen AO. Gründung und erste Jahre der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für das Studium der Osteosynthese. German: Verlag Hans Huber Bern-Göttingen-Toronto-Seattle; 2001. p. 246.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bukata SV, Digiovanni BF, Friedmann SM, et al. A guide to improving the care of patients with fragility fractures. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2011;2(1):5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Böhler L. Die Technik der Knochenbruchbehandlung. 12. und 13. vollständig neubearbeitete Auflage. Verlag für medizinische Wissenschaften. Band 1. Wien-Düsseldorf: Wilhelm Maudrich; 1953.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lambotte A. L’Intervention opératoire dans les fractures récentes et anciennes envisage particulièremnt au point de vue de l’ostéosynthese avec la description de plusieurs techniques nouvelles. Brussels: Henri Lamertin, Libraire-Éditeur; 1907.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Danis R. Théorie et pratique de l’ostéosynthese. Masson et cie. Paris, 1949, 296 pages. French.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Küntscher G. Praxis der Marknagelung. Handschriftlich nach 1. Auflage 1962 überarbeitete bisher unveröffentlichte 2. Ausgabe von 1972. Reprint bei Karger 1986. 349 pages. German.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Willenegger H. Manual of internal fixation. Technique recommended by the AO-group. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer Verlag; 1969. 298 pages.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    SooHoo NF, Krenek L, Eagan MJ, Gurbani B, Ko CY, Zingmond DS. Complication rates following open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(5):1042–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koso RE, Terhoeve C, Steen RG, Zura R. Healing, nonunion, and re-operation after internal fixation of diaphyseal and distal femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3864-4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinau HU, Hebebrand D, Vogt P, Josten C. [Plastic soft tissue coverage in defect fractures of the tibia]. Chirurg. 1996;67(11):1080–6. (German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gaunder CL, Zhao Z, Henderson C, McKinney BR, Stahel PF, Zelle BA. Wound complications after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures in the elderly: a multicentre study. Int Orthop. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3940-9. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mast J, Jakob R, Ganz R. Planning and reduction technique in fracture surgery. Berlin: Springer; 1989. p. 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farouk O, Krettek C, Miclau T, Schandelmaier P, Guy P, Tscherne H. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: does percutaneous plating disrupt femoral blood supply less than the traditional technique? J Orthop Trauma. 1999;13(6):401–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perren SM, Cordey J, Rahn BA, Gautier E, Schneider E. Early temporary porosis of bone induced by internal fixation implants. A reaction to necrosis, not to stress protection? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;(232):139–51.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wagner M, Frigg R. AO manual of fracture management. Internal fixators. Concepts and cases using LCP/LISS. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme; 2006. p. 888.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Babst R, Bavonratanavech S, Pesantes R. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), 2nd edition. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme; 2012. p. 784.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tornetta P, Mostafavi H, Riina J, Turen C, Reimer B, Levine R, Behrens F, Geller J, Ritter C, Homel P. Morbidity and mortality in elderly trauma patients. J Trauma. 1999;46(4):702–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grossmann MD, Miller D, Scaff DW, Arcona S. When is an elder old? Effect of preexisting conditions on mortality in geriatric trauma. J Trauma. 2002;52(2):242–6.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pernod G, Albaladejo P, Godier A, Samama CM, Susen S, Gruel Y, Blais N, Fontana P, Cohen A, Llau JV, Rosencher N, Schved JF, de Maistre E, Samama MM, Mismetti P, Sié P. [Management of major bleeding complications and emergency surgery in patients on long-term treatment with direct oral anticoagulants, thrombin or factor-Xa inhibitors. Proposals of the Working Group on Perioperative Haemostasis (GIHP) - March 2013]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2013;32.(10):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ramly E, Kaafarani HM, Velmahos GC. The effect of aging on pulmonary function: implications for monitoring and support of the surgical and trauma patient. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95(1):53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loftus TJ, Brakenridge SC, Murphy TW, Nguyen LL, Moore FA, Efron PA, Mohr AM. Anemia and blood transfusion in elderly trauma patients. J Surg Res. 2018;229:288–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thaeter M, Knobe M, Vande Kerckhove M, Böhle F, Herold J, Verhaven E, Pape HC. Perioperative inflammatory response in major fracture: do geriatric patients behave differently? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(5):547–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tsuei BJ, Kearney PA. Hypothermia in the trauma patient. Injury. 2004;35(1):7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoppe S, Uhlmann M, Schwyn R, Suhm N, Benneker LM. Intraoperative mechanical measurement of bone quality with the DensiProbe. J Clin Densitom. 2015;18(1):109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hepp P, Lill H, Bail H, Korner J, Niederhagen M, Haas NP, Josten C, Duda GN. Where should implants be anchored in the humeral head? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;(415):139–47.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kamer L, Noser H, Blauth M, Lenz M, Windolf M, Popp AW. Bone mass distribution of the distal tibia in normal, osteopenic, and osteoporotic conditions: an ex vivo assessment using HR-pQCT, DXA, and computational modelling. Calcif Tissue Int. 2016;99(6):588–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wagner D, Kamer L, Sawaguchi T, Richards GR, Noser H, Rommens PM. Sacral bone mass distribution of the sacrum assessed by averaged 3D CT statistical models—implications for pathogenesis and treatment of fragility fractures of the sacrum. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:584–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lanzetti RM, Lupariello D, Venditto T, Guzzini M, Ponzo A, De Carli A, Ferretti A. The role of diabetes mellitus and BMI in the surgical treatment of ankle fractures. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2018;34(2).  https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2954.
  39. 39.
    Krettek C, Wiebking U. [Proximal humerus fracture: is fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis superior to conservative treatment?]. Unfallchirurg. 2011;114(12):1059–67. (German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen Y, Chen X, Li Z, Yan H, Zhou F, Gao W. Safety and efficacy of operative versus nonsurgical management of distal radius fractures in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;41(3):404–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gruszka D, Dietz SO, Brodt R, Wagner D, Kuhn S, Rommens PM, Kuechle R. Results of the treatment of intracapsular femoral neck fractures with a new dynamic locking plate. Acta orthop belg. 2017;83(4):536–43.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhou Z, Zhang X, Tian S, Wu Y. Minimally invasive versus conventional dynamic hip screw for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in older patients. Orthopedics 2012;35(2):e244-9.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Savage JW, Schroeder GD, Anderson PA. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(10):653–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Frey ME, Warner C, Thomas SM, Johar K, Singh H, Mohammad MS, Beall DP. Sacroplasty: a ten-year analysis of prospective patients treated with percutaneous sacroplasty: literature review and technical considerations. Pain Physician. 2017;20(7):E1063–72.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cornell CN. Internal fracture fixation in patients with osteoporosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(2):109–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rommens PM, Pairon P, Kuhn S. [Nailing of metaphyseal fractures]. Unfallchirurg. 2013;116(9):831–46. German.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    White TO, Bugler KE, Appleton P, Will E, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the fibular nail versus standard open reduction and internal fixation for fixation of ankle fractures in elderly patients. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(9):1248–52.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smeets B, Hoekstra H. Fibular nailing seems an effective strategy to decrease treatment crude costs for AO-Type 44B ankle fractures in elderly patients. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016 ;55(3):684–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kuhn S, Appelmann P, Pairon P, Mehler D, Hartmann F, Rommens P. A new angle stable nailing concept for the treatment of distal tibia fractures. Int Orthop. 2014;38:1255–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zwipp H, Paša L, Žilka L, Amlang M, Rammelt S, Pompach M. Introduction of a New Locking Nail for Treatment of Intraarticular Calcaneal Fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(3):e88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, Whitecloud TS, Cook SD. Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(21):2415–20.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Weiser L, Dreimann M, Huber G, Sellenschloh K, Püschel K, Morlock MM, Rueger JM, Lehmann W. Cement augmentation versus extended dorsal instrumentation in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a biomechanical comparison. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(8):1099–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hoppe S, Keel MJ. Pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic spine: indications, limitations and technical aspects. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2017;43(1):3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    El Saman A, Meier S, Sander A, Kelm A, Marzi I, Laurer H. Reduced loosening rate and loss of correction following posterior stabilization with or without PMMA augmentation of pedicle screws in vertebral fractures in the elderly. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2013;39(5):455–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rommens PM, Wagner D, Hofmann A. Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis. JBJS Rev 2017;5:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mehling I, Hessmann MH, Rommens PM. Stabilisation of fatigue fractures of the dorsal pelvis with a trans-sacral bar. Operative technique and outcome. Injury. 2012;43:446–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rommens PM. Is there a role for percutaneous pelvic and acetabular reconstruction? Injury 2007;38(4):463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rommens PM, Wagner D, Hofmann A. Minimal invasive surgical treatment of fragility fractures of the Pelvis. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2017;112(5):524–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vanderschot P. Treatment options of pelvic and acetabular fractures in patients with osteoporotic bone. Injury 2007;38(4):497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jeffcoat DM, Carroll EA, Huber FG, Goldman AT, Miller AN, Lorich DG, Helfet DL. Operative treatment of acetabular fractures in an older population through a limited ilioinguinal approach. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(5):284–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bastian JD, Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Keel MJ. Mid-term results in relation to age and analysis of predictive factors after fixation of acetabular fractures using the modified Stoppa approach. Injury 2013;44(12):1793–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg-University MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations