Prevalent fragility fractures as risk factor for skeletal muscle function deficit and dysmobility syndrome in post-menopausal women
- 300 Downloads
Fragility fractures are a major burden for health and social care in elderly people. In order to identify earlier the “frail elders”, new concepts of “dysmobility syndrome” and skeletal muscle function deficit (SMFD), including sarcopenia, osteoporosis, obesity, and mobility limitation, leading to a higher risk of fractures, have been recently introduced. There are very few studies investigating the association between fragility fractures and both the dysmobility syndrome and the SMFD.
The objective of our study is to investigate the role of previous fragility fractures as a risk factor in determining the dysmobility syndrome and/or the SMFD in post-menopausal women.
In this case–control study, we retrospectively examined data from the medical records of post-menopausal women aged 50 or older. We divided the study population in two groups. The first group includes women with a previous fragility fracture (cases) and the other group includes women without any previous osteoporotic fracture (controls). We identified the subjects with “dysmobility syndrome”, “dynapenic SMFD”, “sarcopenic SMFD”, and “mixed SMFD” in both groups. Data collected refer to a 6-month period.
We retrieved data of 121 post-menopausal women, 77 (63.64 %) had already sustained a fragility fracture at any site (cases). The risk for dysmobility syndrome was significantly higher (adjusted OR for age and serum 25-OH vitamin D3 of 2.46) in the cases compared with the controls.
Discussion and conclusions
An early diagnosis of conditions limiting mobility, including dysmobility syndrome, might be useful to identify, among patients with osteoporotic fractures, those who might have a higher risk of a new fragility fracture.
KeywordsFragility fractures Osteoporosis Sarcopenia Dysmobility syndrome Skeletal muscle function deficit
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. No funding was received in support of this study.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/ or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M et al (2013) 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 8(1–2):136PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Vochteloo AJ, Borger van der Burg BL, Röling MA et al (2012) Contralateral hip fractures and other osteoporosis-related fractures in hip fracture patients: incidence and risk factors. An observational cohort study of 1229 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(8):1191–1197PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Rosenberg IH (1989) Summary comments: epidemiological and methodological problems in determining nutritional status of older persons. Am J Clin Nutr 50:1231–1233Google Scholar
- 24.Hida T, Shimokata H, Sakai Y et al (2015) Sarcopenia and sarcopenic leg as potential risk factors for acute osteoporotic vertebral fracture among older women. Eur Spine J. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 26.Frontera WR, Hughes VA, Fielding RA et al (2000) Roubenoff R Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr longitudinal study. J Appl Physiol (1985) 88(4):1321–1326Google Scholar
- 28.Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. NIH Consens Statement (2000) 17(1):1–45Google Scholar