Factors associated with the course of health-related quality of life after a hip fracture
- 735 Downloads
The number of hip fracture patients is expected to grow the forthcoming decades. Knowledge of the impact of the fracture on the lives of elderly could help us target our care. The aim of the study is to describe HRQoL (Health-Related Quality of Life) after a hip fracture and to identify factors associated with the course of HRQoL in the first postoperative year.
Materials and methods
335 surgically treated hip fracture patients (mean age 79.4 years, SD 10.7, 68 % female) were included in a prospective observational cohort. HRQoL was measured with the SF-12 Health Survey, composed of the Physical and a Mental Component Summary Score (PCS, MCS), at admission (baseline) and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Eleven predefined factors known to be associated with the course of HRQoL were recorded: age, gender, physical status, having a partner at admission, living in an institution, prefracture level of mobility, anemia, type of fracture and treatment, delirium during hospital stay and length of stay.
HRQoL declined between baseline and 3 months, and recovered between three and 12 months. PCS HRQoL did not recover to baseline values, MCS HRQoL did. Age younger than 80 years, ASA classification I and II, higher prefracture level of mobility, intracapsular fracture and treatment with osteosynthesis (compared to arthroplasty) were associated with greater initial decline in PCS HRQoL, none of the recorded factors were significant for decline in MCS HRQoL.
Both PCS and MCS HRQoL declined after a hip fracture and PCS did not recover to baseline values. Healthier patients may need extra care to prevent them from having a steep decline in postoperative PCS HRQoL and arthroplasty should be considered with low threshold.
KeywordsFunction Geriatric fracture Hip fracture Outcome Quality of life SF 12
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The department of orthopaedic surgery and the orthopaedic research foundation in Reinier de Graaf Hospital receive grants from Zimmer Biomet. Each author certifies that he or she and members, or a member of his/her immediate family, have no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose as a conflict of interest in connection with the content of the submitted article.
- 2.Vochteloo AJ, Moerman S, Tuinebreijer WE et al (2012) More than half of hip fracture patients do not regain mobility in the first postoperative year. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2:334–341Google Scholar
- 7.Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Berger C et al (2001) International original article the influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across canada. pp 903–908Google Scholar
- 10.Randell AG, Nguyen TV, Bhalerao N et al (2000) Deterioration in quality of life following hip fracture: A prospective study. Osteoporos Int pp 460–466Google Scholar
- 18.Gjertsen J-E, Vinje T, Lie SA et al (2008) Patient satisfaction, pain, and quality of life 4 months after displaced femoral neck fractures: a comparison of 663 fractures treated with internal fixation and 906 with bipolar hemiarthroplasty reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Acta Orthop 79:594–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.DSM IV-R D (2000) Statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision (DSM IV–R). Washingt DC Am Psychiatry, AssocGoogle Scholar
- 23.Vochteloo AJH, Niesten D, Cornelisse H et al (2009) Voor elke heup een rode map. Med Contact (Bussum) 158–162Google Scholar
- 25.(1968) Nutritional anaemias. Report of a WHO scientific group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 405:5–37Google Scholar
- 32.Koval KJ, Aharonoff GB, Rokito AS et al (1996) Patients with femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures. Are they the same? Clin Orthop Relat Res 166–72Google Scholar
- 33.Parker M, Pryor G, Anand J (1992) A comparison of presenting characteristics of patients with intracapsular and extracapsular proximal femoral fractures. J Royal Soc Med 85:152–155Google Scholar