What interventions add value in lateral compression type 1 fragility pelvis fractures? A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION

Fragility fractures are a large source of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. Orthopaedic surgeons are regularly the main point of contact in patients with lateral compression type 1 pelvis fractures, despite many of these being treated non-operatively. This study aims to identify risk factors for mortality and elucidate which follow-up visits have the potential to improve care for these patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In all, 211 patients have been identified with fragility lateral compression type 1 fractures at a level 1 trauma centre over a 5-year period. For all patients, we recorded patient demographics, imaging data, hospital readmissions, medical complications and death dates if applicable.

RESULTS

Of the 211 patients identified, 56.4% had at least one orthopaedic follow-up, of which no patient had a clinically meaningful medical intervention initiated. 30-day readmission rate was 19%, and 1-year mortality was 24%. Male sex, need for an assist device, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and increased age were found to be statistically associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients who followed up with their primary care physician were found to have a statistically lower risk of mortality. Computed tomography scans were obtained in 70% of patients and never limited patient weight-bearing status or found any additional injury not already identified on the radiograph.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: For patients with lateral compression type 1 type fragility fractures, orthopaedic surgeons did not offer additional clinically meaningful intervention after the time of initial diagnosis in this patient cohort. The rate of clinical follow-up with a primary care physician is relatively low despite high rates of medical comorbidity. Computed tomography scans were utilised frequently but did not change recommendations. The high rate of medical complications and lack of orthopaedic intervention suggest that we should re-evaluate the role of the orthopaedic surgeon versus the primary care physician as the primary point of medical contact for patients with these injuries.