ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Patients with hip fractures are usually treated operatively in Western Europe. However, in Mid-Asia different indications are used to decide whether this patient is suitable for operative treatment and those are related to specific traditions and rules in hospital. Thus, traditions and surgeon/patient fears seem to affect treatment choices in hip fractures and subsequent outcomes. The aim of our study was to investigate patients with hip fractures and compare outcome at 1-year follow-up in the operated and nonoperated patient groups. METHODS: All patients over 50 years old who sustained a hip fracture, between January 2014 and December 2014, were included. Patients were assessed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up, using questionnaires from National Swedish Hip Fracture Register and quality of life (Euroqol EQ-5D). RESULTS: Out of 398 included patients, 299 were operated on and 99 were not. 344 patients remained for our analysis before the end of 1-year follow-up. 51 patients (65%) deceased in the nonoperated group as compared to 55 (21%) in the operated group, p<0.001. Out of 27 patients in the nonoperated group hip function was evaluated at 1-year follow-up, 11 (41%) were walking independently or using 1 stick, as compared to 192 (91%) in the operated group. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that nonoperative treatment of hip fracture patients is associated with higher mortality and worse functional outcome as compared to those who were treated operatively. We therefore advocate operative treatment of the hip fracture in the vast majority of cases.
Subject(s)
Fracture Fixation/methods , Hip Fractures/therapy , Quality of Life , Registries , Walking/physiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hip Fractures/mortality , Hip Fractures/physiopathology , Humans , Kazakhstan/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Survival Rate/trends , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Patients with hip fractures are usually treated operatively in Western Europe. However, in Mid-Asia different indications are used to decide whether this patient is suitable for operative treatment and those are related to specific traditions and rules in hospital. Thus, traditions and surgeon/patient fears seem to affect treatment choices in hip fractures and subsequent outcomes. The aim of our study was to investigate patients with hip fractures and compare outcome at 1-year follow-up in the operated and nonoperated patient groups. METHODS: All patients over 50 years old who sustained a hip fracture, between January 2014 and December 2014, were included. Patients were assessed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up, using questionnaires from National Swedish Hip Fracture Register and quality of life (Euroqol EQ-5D). RESULTS: Out of 398 included patients, 299 were operated on and 99 were not. 344 patients remained for our analysis before the end of 1-year follow-up. 51 patients (65%) deceased in the nonoperated group as compared to 55 (21%) in the operated group, p<0.001. Out of 27 patients in the nonoperated group hip function was evaluated at 1-year follow-up, 11 (41%) were walking independently or using 1 stick, as compared to 192 (91%) in the operated group. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that nonoperative treatment of hip fracture patients is associated with higher mortality and worse functional outcome as compared to those who were treated operatively. We therefore advocate operative treatment of the hip fracture in the vast majority of cases.
