Skip to main content

Epidemiology of pertrochanteric fractures: our institutional experience

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery volume 40, pages 225–232 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Hip fractures, a common manifestation of fragility fractures, represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly population and may have devastating consequences to the patient, their family, and society thereafter. We attempted to define the epidemiology of pertrochanteric fractures treated at a large university teaching hospital in the UK and compared our findings with the national and international literature.

Methods

Between April 2008 and March 2013, we conducted a retrospective cohort study at our institution. All adult patients sustaining a proximal femoral fracture were included in our study. The following parameters were collected and evaluated: (1) demographics, (2) fracture pattern, (3) American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, (4) type of pre-injury mobilization, and (5) method of stabilization. Our findings were then compared to the national data as published in the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD).

Results

Over a period of 5 years, 3,036 proximal femoral fractures were managed at our institution, with 916 (30.2 %) being classified as pertrochanteric fractures (250 male; mean age 82.0, SD 11.2). No significant change in the incidence of pertrochanteric fractures was evident during the same period. Between 2012 and 2013, 51,705 proximal femoral fractures were recorded in England, of which 19,569 (37.8 %) were classified as pertrochanteric fractures. Comparison between pertrochanteric and intracapsular fractures with respect to their demographics did not reveal any significant difference. In female patients, the relative incidence of pertrochanteric fractures was shown to increase with age. However, this was not the case in the male population.

Conclusions

The incidence of pertrochanteric fractures remained unchanged over the last 5 years. The relative incidence of pertrochanteric fractures is higher in elderly females; this may be explained by reduced bone mineral density and reduced trochanteric bone strength. Rigorous preventive treatments of osteoporosis should be considered in high-risk patients, along with improved safety measures to reduce falls.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Moppett IK, Wiles MD, Moran CG, Sahota O. The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score as a predictor of early discharge following fractured neck of femur. Age Ageing. 2012;41(3):322–6. doi:10.1093/ageing/afr142.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiles MD, Moran CG, Sahota O, Moppett IK. Nottingham Hip Fracture Score as a predictor of one year mortality in patients undergoing surgical repair of fractured neck of femur. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(4):501–4. doi:10.1093/bja/aeq405.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Parker M, Johansen A. Hip fracture. BMJ. 2006;333(7557):27–30. doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7557.27.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Maxwell MJ, Moran CG, Moppett IK. Development and validation of a preoperative scoring system to predict 30 day mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101(4):511–7. doi:10.1093/bja/aen236.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hu F, Jiang C, Shen J, Tang P, Wang Y. Preoperative predictors for mortality following hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2012;43(6):676–85. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.017.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(11):897–902. doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1627-0.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hutchings L, Fox R, Chesser T. Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly: how are we measuring outcome? Injury. 2011;42(11):1205–13. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.12.016.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Svedbom A, Hernlund E, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country-specific reports. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1–2):1–218. doi:10.1007/s11657-013-0137-0.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA. World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(5):407–13. doi:10.1007/PL00004148.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, et al. 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(1–2):136. doi:10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Replacement arthroplasty versus internal fixation for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD000086. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000086.pub2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD000093. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Giannoudis PV, Ahmad MA, Mineo GV, Tosounidis TI, Calori GM, Kanakaris NK. Subtrochanteric fracture non-unions with implant failure managed with the “diamond” concept. Injury. 2013;44(Suppl 1):S76–81. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(13)70017-2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Embden D, Rhemrev SJ, Meylaerts SA, Roukema GR. The comparison of two classifications for trochanteric femur fractures: the AO/ASIF classification and the Jensen classification. Injury. 2010;41(4):377–81. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.10.007.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cavaignac E, Lecoq M, Ponsot A, Moine A, Bonnevialle N, Mansat P, et al. CT scan does not improve the reproducibility of trochanteric fracture classification: a prospective observational study of 53 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(1):46–51. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2012.09.019.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fung W, Jonsson A, Buhren V, Bhandari M. Classifying intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur: does experience matter? Med Princ Pract. 2007;16(3):198–202. doi:10.1159/000100390.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Basso T, Klaksvik J, Syversen U, Foss OA. Biomechanical femoral neck fracture experiments—a narrative review. Injury. 2012;43(10):1633–9. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.03.032.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krischak GD, Augat P, Beck A, Arand M, Baier B, Blakytny R, et al. Biomechanical comparison of two side plate fixation techniques in an unstable intertrochanteric osteotomy model: sliding hip screw and percutaneous compression plate. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22(10):1112–8. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.07.016.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lofman O, Berglund K, Larsson L, Toss G. Changes in hip fracture epidemiology: redistribution between ages, genders and fracture types. Osteoporos Int. 2002;13(1):18–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Senohradski K, Markovic-Denic L, Lesic A, Bumbasirevic V, Bumbasirevic M. Trends in the incidence of hip fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(5):1759–63. doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2244-y.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Giversen IM. Time trends of age-adjusted incidence rates of first hip fractures: a register-based study among older people in Viborg County, Denmark, 1987–1997. Osteoporos int. 2006;17(4):552–64. doi:10.1007/s00198-005-0012-y.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mautalen CA, Vega EM, Einhorn TA. Are the etiologies of cervical and trochanteric hip fractures different? Bone. 1996;18(3 Suppl):133S–7S.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stoen RO, Nordsletten L, Meyer HE, Frihagen JF, Falch JA, Lofthus CM. Hip fracture incidence is decreasing in the high incidence area of Oslo, Norway. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(10):2527–34. doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1888-3.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bjorgul K, Reikeras O. Incidence of hip fracture in southeastern Norway: a study of 1,730 cervical and trochanteric fractures. Int Orthop. 2007;31(5):665–9. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0251-3.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Finsen V, Johnsen LG, Trano G, Hansen B, Sneve KS. Hip fracture incidence in central Norway: a follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;419:173–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Partnership HQI. National Hip Fracture Database annual report 2012–13 Data.gov.uk. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/national-hip-fracture-database-annual-report-2012-13 (2013). Accessed 19/11/2013.

  27. National Hip Fracture Database national report 2013 (database on the internet) (2013). Accessed 19/11/2013.

  28. Council LC. Leeds population. http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/Leeds-population.aspx (2013). Accessed 19/11/2013.

  29. Statistics OFN. Population estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, mid-2011 and mid-2012. Office for National Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk (2013). Accessed 23/11/2013.

  30. Kim SH, Meehan JP, Blumenfeld T, Szabo RM. Hip fractures in the United States: 2008 nationwide emergency department sample. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(5):751–7. doi:10.1002/acr.21580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Michaelsson K, Weiderpass E, Farahmand BY, Baron JA, Persson PG, Ziden L, et al. Differences in risk factor patterns between cervical and trochanteric hip fractures. Swedish hip fracture study group. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(6):487–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang J, Wang Y, Liu WD, Wang F, Yin ZS. Hip fractures in Hefei, China: the Hefei osteoporosis project. J Bone Miner Metab. 2013;. doi:10.1007/s00774-013-0484-3.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Baudoin C, Fardellone P, Sebert JL. Effect of sex and age on the ratio of cervical to trochanteric hip fracture. A meta-analysis of 16 reports on 36,451 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;64(6):647–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Observatory WY. Leeds profile (city). http://www.westyorkshireobservatory.org/profiles/profile?profileId=131&geoTypeId=60&geoIds=00DA (2013). Accessed 19/11/2013.

  35. Karagas MR, Lu-Yao GL, Barrett JA, Beach ML, Baron JA. Heterogeneity of hip fracture: age, race, sex, and geographic patterns of femoral neck and trochanteric fractures among the US elderly. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143(7):677–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yoon BH, Lee YK, Kim SC, Kim SH, Ha YC, Koo KH. Epidemiology of proximal femoral fractures in South Korea. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1–2):157. doi:10.1007/s11657-013-0157-9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Koval KJ, Aharonoff GB, Rokito AS, Lyon T, Zuckerman JD. Patients with femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures. Are they the same? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;330:166–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Beringer TR, Clarke J, Elliott JR, Marsh DR, Heyburn G, Steele IC. Outcome following proximal femoral fracture in Northern Ireland. Ulster Med J. 2006;75(3):200–6.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stewart NA, Chantrey J, Blankley SJ, Boulton C, Moran CG. Predictors of 5 year survival following hip fracture. Injury. 2011;42(11):1253–6. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.12.008.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;9:Cd000093. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Association BO. The care of patients with fragility fracture. British Orthopaedic Association. 2011.

  42. Centre NCG. The management of hip fracture in adults. In: Excellence NIfHaC, editor. 2011.

  43. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(4):700–7. doi:10.2106/jbjs.g.00517.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize and thank Christine Tall, fragility fracture nurse specialist, for her assistance in the collection of data.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, University of Leeds, Clarendon Wing, Level A, Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX, UK

    J. N. Lamb, M. Panteli & P. V. Giannoudis

  2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    S. G. Pneumaticos

  3. LIMM Section Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    P. V. Giannoudis

Authors
  1. J. N. Lamb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Panteli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. G. Pneumaticos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. V. Giannoudis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. V. Giannoudis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lamb, J.N., Panteli, M., Pneumaticos, S.G. et al. Epidemiology of pertrochanteric fractures: our institutional experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 40, 225–232 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-014-0375-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-014-0375-x

Keywords

  • Hip fracture
  • Pertrochanteric
  • Intertrochanteric
  • Epidemiology
  • Incidence