Fracture Prevention Clinic Targeting Patients with Fragility Fracture of the Distal Radius: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Identifying and treating patients with fragility fractures may be effective in prevention of subsequent fractures because a first fragility fracture often predicts a second fracture. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a multidisciplinary anti-osteoporotic clinic for patients with prior distal radius fragility fractures (DRFF). To assess whether addressing this early fracture may prevent a second fracture. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed. Cases included patients treated surgically for DRFF who were assessed at a tertiary, multidisciplinary, fracture-prevention clinic. Controls were a series of similarly treated patients who did not attend the clinic. The primary outcome measure was a second fracture. RESULTS: Average follow-up was 42 months for the treated group and 85 months for the untreated group. The treated group received more treatment for osteoporosis than controls; however, despite one new fracture in the treated group and six new fractures in the control group, there was no significant difference in fracture occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study supports the effectiveness of our multidisciplinary anti-osteoporotic clinic in treating osteoporosis but not in reducing subsequent fractures. Further study with larger cohorts and longer follow-up is needed to improve our ability to implement effective prevention of fragility fractures.

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Ontario Fracture Screening and Prevention Program.

BACKGROUND: The Fracture Screening and Prevention Program (FSPP), a fracture liaison service (FLS), was implemented in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2007 to prevent recurrent fragility fractures and to improve post-fracture care. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the current model of the FSPP compared with usual care (no program) from the perspective of the universal public health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC]), over the lifetime of older adults who presented with a fragility fracture of the proximal part of the femur, the proximal part of the humerus, or the distal part of the radius and were not taking medications to prevent or slow bone loss and reduce the risk of fracture (bone active medications). METHODS: We developed a state-transition (Markov) model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the FSPP in comparison with usual care. The model simulated a cohort of patients with a fragility fracture starting at 71 years of age. Model parameters were obtained from published literature and from the FSPP. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2018 Canadian dollars were predicted over a lifetime horizon using a 1.5% annual discount rate. Health outcomes included subsequent proximal femoral, vertebral, proximal humeral, and distal radial fractures. Scenario and subgroup analyses were reported. RESULTS: The FSPP had lower expected costs ($277 less) and higher expected effectiveness (by 0.018 QALY) than usual care over the lifetime horizon. Ninety-four percent of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) demonstrated lower costs and higher effectiveness of the FSPP. CONCLUSIONS: The FSPP appears to be cost-effective compared with usual care over a lifetime for patients with fragility fracture. This information may help to quantify the value of the FSPP and to assist policy-makers in deciding whether to expand the FSPP to additional hospitals or to initiate similar programs where none exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Implantes intramedulares enterrados para fracturas de antebrazo pediátricas. ¿Mejora la tasa de refracturas? / Buried intramedullary implants for paediatric forearm fractures. Does the refracture rate improve?

INTRODUCCIÓN: Las fracturas inestables de antebrazo pueden requerir un manejo quirúrgico mediante reducción y osteosíntesis con agujas intramedulares. Esta fijación debe retirarse precozmente si se ha dejado expuesta, pero esto podría aumentar el riesgo de refracturas sobre un hueso en periodo de remodelado. Como alternativa podemos mantener durante más tiempo las agujas, enterradas a nivel subcutáneo, para proteger el callo óseo. OBJETIVO: Valorar si hay diferencias entre utilizar agujas expuestas respecto a enterrarlas en pacientes pediátricos con fracturas de antebrazo. Nuestra hipótesis es que al enterrar las agujas las mantenemos más tiempo reduciendo las refracturas de antebrazo. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Presentamos una cohorte de 75 pacientes pediátricos con fractura de antebrazo entre 2010 y 2016. Se recogieron datos demográficos, técnica quirúrgica, complicaciones y seguimiento del paciente. RESULTADOS: Los implantes se dejaron expuestos en 50 pacientes y 25 de forma enterrada. El tiempo medio de retirada de los implantes expuestos fue de 6,8 semanas, y de 17,6semanas en los enterrados. No se hallaron diferencias significativas en cuanto a consolidación (p = 0,19) ni en tiempo de inmovilización (p = 0,22). Respecto a las refracturas, se observa un mayor número en el grupo de la osteosíntesis expuesta (4pacientes) respecto a solo un caso con osteosíntesis enterrada, pero sin llegar a presentar diferencias significativas (p = 0,49). No se detectaron complicaciones posquirúrgicas y la funcionalidad fue excelente al final del seguimiento en ambos grupos. CONCLUSIÓN: Dejar los implantes enterrados respecto a expuestos a piel no condiciona una disminución en el número de refracturas ni otras complicaciones, con una adecuada funcionalidad del paciente en ambos casos

INTRODUCTION: Unstable forearm fractures may require surgical management by reduction and osteosynthesis with intramedullary needles. This fixation should be removed early if it has been left exposed, but this could increase the risk of refracture in a bone in the period of remodelling. As an alternative we can keep the needles, buried subcutaneously, for a longer time, to protect the bone callus. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there are differences between using exposed needles with respect to burying them in paediatric patients with forearm fractures. Our hypothesis is that by burying the needles we keep them longer by reducing forearm refractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present a cohort of 75 paediatric patients with a forearm fracture between 2010 and 2016. Demographic data, surgical technique, complications and patient follow-up were collected. RESULTS: The implants were left exposed in 50 patients and 25 buried. The average time of removal of the exposed implants was 6.8 weeks and 17.6weeks in the buried ones. No significant differences were found in terms of consolidation (P=.19) or immobilization time (P=.22). Regarding refractures, a greater number was observed in the exposed osteosynthesis group (4patients) compared to only one case with buried osteosynthesis, but there were no significant differences (P=.49). No postsurgical complications were detected and the functionality was excellent at the end of the follow-up in both groups. CONCLUSION: Leaving implants buried in relation to skin exposed does not cause a decrease in the number of refractures or other complications, with adequate patient functionality in both cases

Buried intramedullary implants for paediatric forearm fractures. Does the refracture rate improve? / Implantes intramedulares enterrados para fracturas de antebrazo pediátricas. ¿Mejora la tasa de refracturas?

INTRODUCTION: Unstable forearm fractures may require surgical management by reduction and osteosynthesis with intramedullary needles. This fixation should be removed early if it has been left exposed, but this could increase the risk of refracture in a bone in the period of remodelling. As an alternative we can keep the needles, buried subcutaneously, for a longer time, to protect the bone callus. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there are differences between using exposed needles with respect to burying them in paediatric patients with forearm fractures. Our hypothesis is that by burying the needles we keep them longer by reducing forearm refractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present a cohort of 75 paediatric patients with a forearm fracture between 2010 and 2016. Demographic data, surgical technique, complications and patient follow-up were collected. RESULTS: The implants were left exposed in 50 patients and 25 buried. The average time of removal of the exposed implants was 6.8weeks and 17.6weeks in the buried ones. No significant differences were found in terms of consolidation (P=.19) or immobilization time (P=.22). Regarding refractures, a greater number was observed in the exposed osteosynthesis group (4patients) compared to only one case with buried osteosynthesis, but there were no significant differences (P=.49). No postsurgical complications were detected and the functionality was excellent at the end of the follow-up in both groups. CONCLUSION: Leaving implants buried in relation to skin exposed does not cause a decrease in the number of refractures or other complications, with adequate patient functionality in both cases.

Wrist Fractures and Osteoporosis.

Distal radial fractures account for up to 18% of all fractures in patients over 65 years of age, and osteoporosis is a predominant factor in these fractures. Fracture treatment may include closed reduction and casting/splinting, external fixation, and open reduction and internal fixation.

Abaloparatide effect on forearm bone mineral density and wrist fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

PURPOSE: Wrist fractures are common, contribute significantly to morbidity in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, and occur predominantly at the ultradistal radius, a site rich in trabecular bone. This exploratory analysis of the phase 3 ACTIVE study evaluated effects of abaloparatide versus placebo and teriparatide on forearm bone mineral density (BMD) and risk of wrist fracture. METHODS: Forearm BMD was measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in a subset of 982 women from ACTIVE, evenly distributed across the three treatment groups. Wrist fractures were ascertained in the total cohort (N = 2463). RESULTS: After 18 months, ultradistal radius BMD changes from baseline were 2.25 percentage points greater for abaloparatide compared with placebo (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38, 3.12, p < 0.001) and 1.54 percentage points greater for abaloparatide compared with teriparatide (95% CI 0.64, 2.45, p < 0.001). At 18 months, 1/3 radius BMD losses (versus baseline) were similar for abaloparatide compared with placebo (-0.42; 95% CI -1.03, 0.20; p = 0.19) but losses with teriparatide exceeded those of placebo (-1.66%; 95% CI -2.27, -1.06; p < 0.001). The decline with abaloparatide was less than that seen with teriparatide (group difference 1.22%; 95% CI 0.57, 1.87; p < 0.001). The radius BMD findings, at both ultradistal and 1/3 sites, are consistent with the numerically lower incidence of wrist fractures observed in women treated with abaloparatide compared with teriparatide (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.18, 1.03; p = 0.052) and placebo (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.20, 1.19, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with teriparatide, abaloparatide increased BMD at the ultradistal radius (primarily trabecular bone) and decreased BMD to a lesser extent at the 1/3 radius (primarily cortical bone), likely contributing to the numerically lower wrist fracture incidence observed with abaloparatide.

Therapist's practice patterns for subsequent fall/osteoporotic fracture prevention for patients with a distal radius fracture.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. INTRODUCTION: Multifactorial risk factor screening and treatment is needed for subsequent falls/osteoporotic fractures prevention (SFOFP), given the elevated risk among patients with distal radius fracture (DRF). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The primary objective was to describe hand therapists' knowledge and clinical practice patterns for assessment, treatment, referral, and education with respect to SFOFP for patients with DRF older than 45 years. Secondary objective was to explore therapist's preferences in content and delivery of knowledge translation tools that would support implementation of SFOFP. METHODS: A cross-sectional multinational (Canada, the United States, and India) survey was conducted among 272 therapists from August to October 2014. Completed surveys were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 157 therapists. Most respondents were from the United States (59%), certified hand therapists (54%), and females (87%). Although 65%-90% believed that they had knowledge about SFOFP assessment, treatment, and referral options, 55% did not include it in their routine practice for patients with DRF. Most assessed medication history (82%) and never used a Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (90%) or lower extremity muscle strength testing (54%) to identify those at risk of secondary fractures. With respect to treatment, approximately 33% always used upper extremity muscle strengthening exercises. Most reported rarely (sometimes to never) using balance (79%), lower extremity muscle strengthening (85%), bone strengthening (54%), or community-based physical activity (72%) programs. Similarly, when surveyed about patient education, therapists rarely (sometimes to never) advised patients about web-based resources (94%), regular vision testing (92%), diet for good bone health (87%), bone density evaluation (86%), footwear correction (73%), and hazard identification (67%). Most hand therapists were interested to receive more information on SFOFP for patients with DRF. Nearly one-half preferred to have Web sites for patients, and two-fifth were in favor of pamphlets for patients. CONCLUSION: Current practice patterns reveal care gaps and limited implementation with respect to SFOFP for patients with DRF. Future research should focus on web-based educational/knowledge translation strategies to promote implementation of multifactorial fall risk screening and hand therapist's engagement in SFOFP for patients with DRF.

Improvement in the rate of inadequate pharmaceutical treatment by orthopaedic surgeons for the prevention of a second fracture over the last 10 years.

BACKGROUND: We have previously reported that the low rate of osteoporosis patients treated with anti-osteoporotic drugs following surgical treatment for the first fragility fractures by orthopaedic surgeons during 3 years from 2000 to 2003 was only 13.1%. Ten years have now passed our previous study, and we hypothesized that the rate of appropriate pharmacologic treatment for the prevention of secondary fractures has improved. METHODS: We studied 730 osteoporosis patients (102 men and 628 women; average age of 78 years, range 33-102 years) who underwent surgical treatment for fragility fractures, during 3-year period from 2010 to 2012. The 730 cases consisted of 489 hip fractures and 241 distal radius fractures. All patients were admitted and underwent surgical intervention in hospitals. Variables were examined to ascertain whether pharmaceutical treatment was performed after discharge. Based on these data, we compared results for patients in the present study with those from our previous study. RESULTS: The rate of treatment with anti-osteoporosis medication in the present (16.2%) was slightly but significantly improved from that in our previous study (13.1%). The rate of pharmaceutical treatment following hip fractures increased significantly, while that following distal radius fractures showed no significant change. Regarding the categories of anti-osteoporotic drugs prescribed to the patients, the rate of treatment with bisphosphonate as a higher evidenced drug for the prevention of fractures in the present study was significantly higher than that in our previous study. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that the rate of pharmacologic treatment by orthopaedic surgeons and the rate of more effective anti-osteoporotic drugs prescribed to the patients following surgical intervention for the first fragility fracture in the present study were improved in comparison with those of 10 years ago.

Pediatric Orthopedic Hoverboard Injuries: A Prospectively Enrolled Cohort.

Hoverboards pose a significant risk of musculoskeletal injury to pediatric riders. A prospectively enrolled cohort yielded 9 pediatric patients injured while riding hoverboards in 2016. Eight of the injuries involved the upper extremity, and one involved the lower extremity. No riders wore any safety equipment and injury patterns modeled those seen in skateboard riders.

[Operative treatment of terrible triad injury of the elbow : Open reduction and internal fixation]. / Operative Therapie der Terrible-Triad-Verletzung des Ellenbogens : Offene Reposition und interne Fixation.

AIM OF SURGERY: Reconstruction of the most important ligamentous and osseus structures of the elbow after terrible triad injury via the radial head to the lateral collateral ligament complex (LCL) and if necessary beginning at the coronoid process. The aim is a stable concentrically guided elbow with early functional follow-up treatment. The approach depends on the intraoperatively tested stability. INDICATIONS: Osteoligamentous terrible triad injury pattern with or without subluxation position following reduction and temporary immobilization. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Inoperable due to comorbidities. Concentric elbow with radial head fracture without impairment of pronation/supination, coronoid fragment <50% and stable range of motion up to 30°. OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: Lateral access according to Kaplan or Kocher in order to address the anterior capsule/coronoid tip. Stabilization of the radial head with mini fragment screws and plates or radial head prosthesis. Osseous reinsertion of the LCL at its origin with transosseous sutures/bone anchors on the radial epicondyle of the humerus. In cases of persisting instability (hanging arm test) treatment with lateral movement fixation and/or the medial collateral ligaments from medial. FOLLOW-UP TREATMENT: Immobilization in upper arm plaster cast in the first postoperative days, active assistive pain-adapted movement therapy in the cast from postoperative day 1 and after 6-8 weeks resistive therapy in the whole elbow. RESULTS: Control of 15 terrible triad patients (mean age 45.9 years, range 20-87 years) after 9.6 months (range 2.6-31.6 months), extent of movement flexion/extension 131/14/0°, pronation/supination 78/0/67°. Arthrolysis after an average of 38 weeks in 4 patients, signs of joint arthrosis in 8, heterotopic ossification in 7 and neuropathic complaints in the region of the ulnar nerve in 1 patient. Early functional therapy with reproducible results by stabilization of osteoligamentous structures.

Supplemental Bone Grafting in Giant Cell Tumor of the Extremity Reduces Nononcologic Complications.

BACKGROUND: Giant cell tumors (GCTs) are treated with resection curettage and adjuvants followed by stabilization. Complications include recurrence, fracture, and joint degeneration. Studies have shown treatment with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) may increase the risk of joint degeneration and fracture. Other studies have suggested that subchondral bone grafting may reduce these risks. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Following standard intralesional resection-curettage and adjuvant treatment, is the use of bone graft, with or without supplemental PMMA, (1) associated with fewer nononcologic complications; (2) associated with differences in tumor recurrence between patients treated with versus those treated without bone grafting for GCT; and (3) associated with differences in Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores? METHODS: Between 1996 and 2014, 49 patients presented with GCT in the epiphysis of a long bone. Six patients were excluded, four who were lost to followup before 12 months and two because they presented with displaced, comminuted, intraarticular pathologic fractures with a nonreconstructable joint surface. The remaining 43 patients were included in our study at a mean followup of 59 months (range, 12-234 months). After resection-curettage, 21 patients were reconstructed using femoral head allograft with or without PMMA (JB) and 22 patients were reconstructed using PMMA alone (FRP, KSB); each surgeon used the same approach (that is, bone graft or no bone graft) throughout the period of study. The primary study comparison was between patients treated with bone graft (with or without PMMA) and those treated without bone graft. RESULTS: Nononcologic complications occurred less frequently in patients treated with bone graft than those treated without (10% [two of 21] versus 55% [12 of 22]; odds ratio, 0.088; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.47; p = 0.002). Patients with bone graft had increased nononcologic complication-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% CI, 1.39-15.12; p = 0.012). With the numbers available, there was no difference in tumor recurrence between patients treated with bone graft versus without (29% [six of 21] versus 32% [seven of 22]; odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.1936-2.531; p = 0.586) or in recurrence-free survival among patients with bone graft versus without (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.30-2.98; p = 0.920). With the numbers available, there was no difference in mean MSTS scores between patients treated with bone graft versus without (92% ± 2% versus 93% ± 1.4%; mean difference 1.0%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 6.0%; p = 0.675). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PMMA alone, the use of periarticular bone graft constructs reduces postoperative complications apparently without increasing the likelihood of tumor recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Patterns of Prescription Drug Use Before and After Fragility Fracture.

IMPORTANCE: Patients who have a fragility fracture are at high risk for subsequent fractures. Prescription drugs represent 1 factor that could be modified to reduce the risk of subsequent fracture. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of prescription drugs associated with fracture risk before and after fragility fracture. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study conducted between February 2015 and March 2016 using a 40% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 through 2011 in general communities throughout the United States. A total of 168 133 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who survived a fracture of the hip, shoulder, or wrist were included. Cohort members were required to be enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare with drug coverage (Parts A, B, and D) and to be community dwelling for at least 30 days in the immediate 4-month postfracture period. EXPOSURES: Prescription drug use during the 4-month period before and after a fragility fracture. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prescription fills for drug classes associated with increased fracture risk were measured using Part D retail pharmacy claims. These were divided into 3 categories: drugs that increase fall risk; drugs that decrease bone density; and drugs with unclear fracture risk mechanism. Drugs that increase bone density were also tracked. RESULTS: A total of 168 133 patients with a fragility fracture (141 569 women; 84.2%) met the inclusion criteria for this study; 91.8% were white. Across all fracture types, the mean (SD) age was 80.0 (7.7) years, and 53.2% of the fracture cohort was hospitalized at the time of the index fracture, although this varied significantly depending on fracture type (100% of hip fractures, 8.2% of wrist fractures, and 15.0% of shoulder fractures). The frequency of discharge to an institution for rehabilitation following hospitalization also varied by fracture type, but the mean (SD) duration of acute rehabilitation did not: 28.1 (19.8) days. Most patients were exposed to at least 1 nonopiate drug associated with increased fracture risk in the 4 months before fracture (77.1% of hip, 74.1% of wrist, and 75.9% of shoulder fractures). Approximately 7% of these patients discontinued this drug exposure after the fracture, but this was offset by new users after fracture. Consequently, the proportion of the cohort exposed following fracture was unchanged (80.5%, 74.3%, and 76.9% for hip, wrist, and shoulder, respectively). There was no change in the average number of fracture-associated drugs used. This same pattern of use before and after fracture was observed across all 3 drug mechanism categories. Use of drugs to strengthen bone density was uncommon (≤25%) both before and after fracture. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Exposure to prescription drugs associated with fracture risk is infrequently reduced following fragility fracture occurrence. While some patients eliminate their exposure to drugs associated with fracture, an equal number initiate new high-risk drugs. This pattern suggests there is a missed opportunity to modify at least one factor contributing to secondary fractures.

Secondary prevention of osteoporosis following fragility fractures of the distal radius in a large health maintenance organization.

UNLABELLED: A retrospective study evaluated a large health maintenance organization for secondary prevention of osteoporosis following fragility fractures of the distal radius. Our population remained undiagnosed and untreated despite the ability of the system to provide adequate care. These patients specifically should be targeted for a comprehensive multidisciplinary effort at prevention. PURPOSE: Osteoporotic wrist fractures carry a high risk for subsequent fragility fractures. Despite therapeutic options and systems that can provide secondary prevention, patients are not always treated appropriately. Our purpose was to evaluate the treatment afforded following a distal radius fragility fracture in our health system. METHODS: A retrospective review of fractures following surgery was performed. Radiographs and mechanism of injury defined fragility fractures. Demographic data, other fractures, and secondary prevention measures were documented. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were evaluated. The average age was 64 (10.2) years. The follow-up period following the index fracture was 25.2 months (SD = 4.6). Twenty-eight percent of patients had a second fragility fracture. Seven sustained a subsequent fracture within the follow-up period (8.5 %), and 16 (19.5 %) fractured prior to the index fracture. Mean time from primary to index fracture was 50 (42) months. Forty-seven percent of patients with an additional fracture carried the chart diagnosis of osteoporosis or osteopenia while 24.6 % of patients without an additional fracture carried this diagnosis (p = 0.049). No patients were referred for prevention or an endocrinologist at discharge. Twenty-one percent of patients were treated for osteoporosis at any point. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were unlikely to receive appropriate evaluation and treatment for secondary prevention of fragility fractures in our system. A system-based treatment plan for the prevention of osteoporosis should be implemented. Since distal radius fractures occur early in osteoporosis, these fractures should be targeted for secondary prevention.

Prevention of re-fractures of both bones of the forearm in children.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to observe if the re-fracture rate after forearm both bones was decreased by protecting the forearm with a preventive brace for 6 months following the fracture and by ceasing all physical activities. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in 75 consecutive cases of diaphyseal fracture of both bone of forearms, in 52 boys and 23 girls aged from 6 months to 11 years. It concerned a first episode of fracture in 84% of cases and a re-fracture in 17%. RESULTS: Re-fracture rate was 0% in the group where a protective brace was worn while it was 20% in the group without brace. CONCLUSIONS: Both the wearing of a protective brace and absence of sport for 6 months may decrease the re-fracture rate to 0%, if the patient is compliant by wearing it and by ceasing all physical activities.

Use of High-Speed X ray and Video to Analyze Distal Radius Fracture Pathomechanics.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the failure sequence of the distal radius during a simulated fall onto an outstretched hand using cadaver forearms and high-speed X ray and video systems. This apparatus records the beginning and propagation of bony failure, ultimately resulting in distal radius or forearm fracture. The effects of 3 different wrist guard designs are investigated using this system. Serving as a proof-of-concept analysis, this study supports this imaging technique to be used in larger studies of orthopedic trauma and protective devices and specifically for distal radius fractures.

Epidemiology of fragility fractures in Sakaiminato, Japan: incidence, secular trends, and prognosis.

UNLABELLED: We investigated the incidence of fragility fractures from 2010 to 2012 in Sakaiminato, Japan. The incidence rates of limb fractures in Sakaiminato were lower than in Caucasian populations but had increased relative to data obtained in Japan in the 1990s. Clinical vertebral fractures occurred at higher rates in Sakaiminato than in Caucasian populations. INTRODUCTION: To elucidate the incidence and prognosis of fragility fractures in Sakaiminato, Japan. METHODS: A survey of all hip, distal radius, proximal humerus, and clinical vertebral fractures was performed from 2010 to 2012 in patients aged 50 or older in Sakaiminato city, Tottori prefecture, Japan. The age- and gender-specific incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) were calculated based on the population of Sakaiminato city each year. The incidence rates of hip, distal radius, and proximal humerus fractures were compared with previous reports. We conducted a follow-up study assessing patients within 1 year following their initial treatment at two Sakaiminato hospitals. RESULTS: The age-adjusted incidence rates in population aged 50 years or older (per 100,000 person-years) of hip, distal radius, proximal humerus, and clinical vertebral fractures were, respectively, 217, 82, 26, and 412 in males and 567, 432, 96, and 1229 in females. Age-specific incidence rates of hip, distal radius, and proximal humerus fractures all increased since the 1990s. Our study also revealed that anti-osteoporotic pharmacotherapy was prescribed 1 year post-fracture at rates of 29, 20, 30, and 50 % for patients with hip, distal radius, proximal humerus, and clinical vertebral fractures, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rates of limb fractures in Sakaiminato were substantially lower than Caucasian populations in northern Europe but had increased relative to data obtained in Japan in the 1990s. Unlike upper and lower limb fractures, clinical vertebral fractures occurred at higher rates in our study population than in other Asian and North European countries.

Fracture of the distal radius: epidemiology and premanagement radiographic characterization.

OBJECTIVE: Fractures of the distal radius are common and frequently encountered by the radiologist. We review the epidemiology, classification, as well as the concept of instability. Salient qualitative and quantitative features of the distal radius fracture identifiable on the routine radiography series are highlighted. We conclude with a synopsis of descriptors that are of greatest utility to the clinician for treatment planning and that should be addressed in the radiology report. CONCLUSION: A detailed understanding of the intricacies of the distal radius fracture is necessary for the radiologist to provide a clinically relevant description.

Controversies in the management of distal radius fractures.

Controversies span the entire spectrum of management of distal radius fractures-fracture assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation of outcomes. The utility of multiple radiographic views described in the literature has not been validated. Likewise, the several classification systems that exist have yet to demonstrate substantial interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Nonsurgical controversies involve fracture reduction, use of anesthesia, type of fracture immobilization, and forearm position during healing. Surgical controversies include surgical indications, need for release of carpal tunnel, fracture fixation method, and the need for augmentation (ie, bone graft). Postoperatively, rehabilitation, medication, and physical therapy also remain highly controversial. The best outcome measure has yet to be established. A strong need remains for high-level, prospective studies to determine the most effective way to assess, diagnose, treat, and measure outcomes in patients with distal radius fractures.

Effect of vitamin D in fracture healing in a child: case report.

UNLABELLED: In this report, we describe the effect of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on fracture healing in a young boy with a hypovitaminosis D who had a radius refracture. The radiographic evaluation of the callus formation shows a clear effect of vitamin D on fracture healing in absence of additional variables. INTRODUCTION: Fracture healing restores the tissue to its original physical and mechanical properties and it involves a complex multistep process that involves response to injury, intramembranous bone formation, chondrogenesis, endochondral bone formation, and bone remodeling. All this process is influenced by a variety of systemic and local factors. It is generally assumed that vitamin D plays an intimate role in healing fractures; however, very little data exists on how it does. CASE REPORT: In this report, the authors describe the effect of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on fracture healing in a young boy with a hypovitaminosis D who had a radius refracture. CONCLUSIONS: Our case report suggests that the hypovitaminosis D is a possible cause of inadequate fracture healing and refracture in children and it shows a clear effect of vitamin D supplementation on callus formation in the absence of additional variables.