Advertisement

Archives of Osteoporosis

, 12:41 | Cite as

Effect of low appendicular lean mass, grip strength, and gait speed on the functional outcome after surgery for distal radius fractures

  • Young Hak Roh
  • Jung Ho Noh
  • Hyun Sik Gong
  • Goo Hyun Baek
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Patients with low appendicular lean mass plus slow gait speed or weak grip strength are at risk for poor functional recovery after surgery for distal radius fracture, even when they have similar radiologic outcomes.

Introduction

Loss of skeletal muscle mass and consequent loss in muscle function associate with aging, and this condition negatively impacts the activities of daily living and increases elderly individuals’ frailty to falls. Thus, patients with low appendicular lean mass would show different functional recovery compared to those without this condition after surgery for distal radius fracture (DRF). This study compares the functional outcomes after surgery for DRF in patients with or without low appendicular lean mass plus slowness or weakness.

Methods

A total of 157 patients older than 50 years of age with a DRF treated via volar plate fixation were enrolled in this prospective study. A definition of low appendicular lean mass with slowness or weakness was based on the consensus of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. The researchers compared functional assessments (wrist range of motion and Michigan Hand Questionnaire [MHQ]) and radiographic assessments (radial inclination, volar tilt, ulnar variance, and articular congruity) 12 months after surgery between patients with and without low appendicular lean mass plus slowness or weakness. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine whether appendicular lean mass, grip strength, gait speed, patient demographic, or injury characteristics accounted for the functional outcomes.

Results

Patients with low appendicular lean mass plus slowness or weakness showed a significantly lower recovery of MHQ score than those in the control group throughout 12 months. There was no significant difference in the range of motion between the groups. The radiologic outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in terms of volar tilt, radial inclination, or ulnar variance. According to multivariable regression analysis, the poor recovery of MHQ score was associated with an increase in age, weak grip strength, and lower appendicular lean mass, and these three factors accounted for 37% of the variation in the MHQ scores.

Conclusion

Patients with low appendicular lean mass plus slowness or weakness are at risk for poor functional recovery after surgery for DRF, even when they have similar radiologic outcomes.

Keywords

Distal radius fracture Sarcopenia Surgical outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2017R1C1B1002544).

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by our institutional review board, and all patients provided informed consent.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Nellans KW, Kowalski E, Chung KC (2012) The epidemiology of distal radius fractures. Hand Clin 28(2):113–125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacIntyre NJ, Dewan N (2016) Epidemiology of distal radius fractures and factors predicting risk and prognosis. J Hand Ther 29(2):136–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roh YH, Lee BK, Noh JH, Oh JH, Gong HS, Baek GH (2014) Factors delaying recovery after volar plate fixation of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am 39(8):1465–1470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bokshan SL, DePasse JM, Daniels AH (2016) Sarcopenia in orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics 39(2):e295–e300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cawthon PM, Marshall LM, Michael Y, Dam TT, Ensrud KE, Barrett-Connor E, Orwoll ES, Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research G (2007) Frailty in older men: prevalence, progression, and relationship with mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc 55(8):1216–1223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Orav JE, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R, Schlogl M, Staehelin HB, Willett WC, Dawson-Hughes B (2015) Comparative performance of current definitions of sarcopenia against the prospective incidence of falls among community-dwelling seniors age 65 and older. Osteoporos Int 26(12):2793–2802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, Martin FC, Michel JP, Rolland Y, Schneider SM, Topinkova E, Vandewoude M, Zamboni M, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older P (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing 39(4):412–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clynes MA, Edwards MH, Buehring B, Dennison EM, Binkley N, Cooper C (2015) Definitions of sarcopenia: associations with previous falls and fracture in a population sample. Calcif Tissue Int 97(5):445–452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trombetti A, Reid KF, Hars M, Herrmann FR, Pasha E, Phillips EM, Fielding RA (2016) Age-associated declines in muscle mass, strength, power, and physical performance: impact on fear of falling and quality of life. Osteoporos Int 27(2):463–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong W, Cheng Q, Zhu X, Zhu H, Li H, Zhang X, Zheng S, Du Y, Tang W, Xue S, Ye Z (2015) Prevalence of sarcopenia and its relationship with sites of fragility fractures in elderly Chinese men and women. PLoS One 10(9):e0138102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen LK, Liu LK, Woo J, Assantachai P, Auyeung TW, Bahyah KS, Chou MY, Chen LY, Hsu PS, Krairit O, Lee JS, Lee WJ, Lee Y, Liang CK, Limpawattana P, Lin CS, Peng LN, Satake S, Suzuki T, Won CW, Wu CH, Wu SN, Zhang T, Zeng P, Akishita M, Arai H (2014) Sarcopenia in Asia: consensus report of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 15(2):95–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ 3rd, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9(8):1137–1141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung KC, Squitieri L, Kim HM (2008) Comparative outcomes study using the volar locking plating system for distal radius fractures in both young adults and adults older than 60 years. J Hand Surg Am 33(6):809–819CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roh YH, Lee BK, Baek JR, Noh JH, Gong HS, Baek GH (2015) A randomized comparison of volar plate and external fixation for intra-articular distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am 40(1):34–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menant JC, Weber F, Lo J, Sturnieks DL, Close JC, Sachdev PS, Brodaty H, Lord SR (2017) Strength measures are better than muscle mass measures in predicting health-related outcomes in older people: time to abandon the term sarcopenia? Osteoporos Int 28(1):59–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suetta C, Magnusson SP, Rosted A, Aagaard P, Jakobsen AK, Larsen LH, Duus B, Kjaer M (2004) Resistance training in the early postoperative phase reduces hospitalization and leads to muscle hypertrophy in elderly hip surgery patients—a controlled, randomized study. J Am Geriatr Soc 52(12):2016–2022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young Hak Roh
    • 1
  • Jung Ho Noh
    • 2
  • Hyun Sik Gong
    • 3
  • Goo Hyun Baek
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryEwha Womans University School of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKangwon National University HospitalChuncheon-siSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations