Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 3/2022

Open Access 08-10-2021 | Care | Review Article

Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries

Authors: Maic Werner, Christian Macke, Manfred Gogol, Christian Krettek, Emmanouil Liodakis

Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery | Issue 3/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Hip fractures are of growing interest due to their increasing number, subsequent functional decline and high institutionalization rate of patients, mortality, and costs. Several process measurements are essential for hip fracture care. To compare and improve these, hip fracture registries in Europe became popular. This systematic review aims to describe the differences between hip fracture registries in Europe as well as the differences in hip fracture treatment between countries.

Methods

A systematic search using the keywords “hip fracture” AND “national” AND “database OR audit OR registry OR register” was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library according to PRISMA guidelines till 3rd December 2020. Recent annual reports of identified hip fracture registries in Europe were additionally identified in June 2021. Comparisons of most common case-mix, process and outcome measurements were performed.

Results

11 registries in Europe were identified. Differences were observed regarding inclusion criteria of the different registries. Comparison of the different registries was difficult due to differences in the way to report measurements. While mortality rates differed substantially between countries, most of the process measurements met recommendations according to recent guidelines.

Conclusion

Hip fracture registries were a valid tool to compare hospitals within one country. However, a comparison between registries of different countries should have also been easily possible. For this, the registries need to make their data easily accessible and further unify their way of measuring and reporting.
Literature
1.
Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jönsson B, Kanis JA. 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):136.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA. World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(5):407–13.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Sterling RS. Gender and race/ethnicity differences in hip fracture incidence, morbidity, mortality, and function. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(7):1913–8.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Cucic S. European Union health policy and its implications for national convergence. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12(3):217–25.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Gaeta M, Campanella F, Capasso L, Schifino GM, Gentile L, Banfi G, Pelissero G, Ricci C. An overview of different health indicators used in the European health systems. J Prev Med Hyg. 2017;58(2):E114–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Medin E, Goude F, Melberg HO, Tediosi F, Belicza E, Peltola M; EuroHOPE study group. European regional differences in all-cause mortality and length of stay for patients with hip fracture. Health Econ. 2015;24(2):53–64.
8.
Murray CE, Fuchs A, Grünewald H, Godkin O, Südkamp NP, Konstantinidis L. Identifying disparities in the management of hip fractures within Europe: a comparison of 3 health-care systems. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2019;10:2151459319872941.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
10.
Pincus D, Ravi B, Wasserstein D, Huang A, Paterson JM, Nathens AB, Kreder HJ, Jenkinson RJ, Wodchis WP. Association between wait time and 30-day mortality in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. JAMA. 2017;318(20):1994–2003.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Rapp K, Becker C, Todd C, Rothenbacher D, Schulz C, König HH, Liener U, Hartwig E, Büchele G. The association between orthogeriatric co-management and mortality following hip fracture. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020;117(4):53–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Beaupre LA, Morrish DW, Hanley DA, Maksymowych WP, Bell NR, Juby AG, Majumdar SR. Oral bisphosphonates are associated with reduced mortality after hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(3):983–91.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Chang JT, Morton SC, Rubenstein LZ, Mojica WA, Maglione M, Suttorp MJ, Roth EA, Shekelle PG. Interventions for the prevention of falls in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2004;328(7441):680.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
15.
Ferguson KB, Halai M, Winter A, Elswood T, Smith R, Hutchison JD, Holt G. National audits of hip fractures: are yearly audits required? Injury. 2016;47(2):439–43.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Ojeda-Thies C, Sáez-López P, Currie CT, Tarazona-Santalbina FJ, Alarcón T, Muñoz-Pascual A, Pareja T, Gómez-Campelo P, Montero-Fernández N, Mora-Fernández J, Larrainzar-Garijo R, Gil-Garay E, Etxebarría-Foronda I, Caeiro JR, Díez-Pérez A, Prieto-Alhambra D, Navarro-Castellanos L, Otero-Puime A, González-Montalvo JI; participants in the RNFC. Spanish national hip fracture registry (RNFC): analysis of its first annual report and international comparison with other established registries. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(6):1243–54.CrossRef
17.
Krušič D, Brilej D, Currie C, Komadina R. Audit of geriatric hip fracture care—a Slovenian trauma center analysis. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2016;128(Suppl 7):527–34.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Johansen A, Golding D, Brent L, Close J, Gjertsen JE, Holt G, Hommel A, Pedersen AB, Röck ND, Thorngren KG. Using national hip fracture registries and audit databases to develop an international perspective. Injury. 2017;48(10):2174–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
The Finish Hip Fracture Registry. Online dashboard. https://​sampo.​thl.​fi/​pivot/​prod/​fi/​perfect/​lmtuotpts/​summary_​table?​mittari_​0=​96182&​mittari_​0=​135316&​mittari_​0=​96223&​mittari_​0=​96210&​mittari_​0=​96211&​mittari_​0=​96219&​mittari_​0=​135002&​mittari_​0=​134996&​mittari_​0=​141085&​mittari_​0=​141083&​mittari_​0=​141084&​mittari_​0=​96220&​mittari_​0=​96218&​mittari_​0=​96192&​mittari_​0=​96196&​mittari_​0=​96207&​mittari_​0=​96189&​mittari_​0=​96183&​mittari_​0=​96186&​mittari_​0=​96213&​mittari_​0=​96221&​aikamulti_​0=​131798&​aikamulti_​0=​131829&​aikamulti_​0=​131818&​aikamulti_​0=​131847&​aikamulti_​0=​131841&​aikamulti_​0=​131822&​aikamulti_​0=​131839&​aikamulti_​0=​131846&​aikamulti_​0=​131826&​aikamulti_​0=​131832&​aikamulti_​0=​131833&​aikamulti_​0=​131834&​aikamulti_​0=​131864&​aikamulti_​0=​131811&​aikamulti_​0=​131856&​aikamulti_​0=​131819&​aikamulti_​0=​224556&​aikamulti_​0=​323814&​aikamulti_​0=​424912#. (Accessed 9 June 2021)
28.
Ferrara MC, Andreano A, Tassistro E, Rapazzini P, Zurlo A, Volpato S, Mussi C, Corsi M, Lunardelli ML, Martini E, Castoldi G, De Filippi F, Pizzonia M, Monacelli F, Barone A, Pilotto A, March A, Ungar A, Capelli R, Galmarini V, Franzoni S, Terragnoli F, Bianchetti A, Cazzulani I, Gandossi C, Valsecchi MG, Bellelli G; GIOG study group. Three-year national report from the Gruppo Italiano di Ortogeriatria (GIOG) in the management of hip-fractured patients. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;32(7):1245–53.CrossRef
29.
Zurlo A, Bellelli G. Orthogeriatrics in Italy: the Gruppo Italiano di Orthogeriatria (GIOC) audit on hip fractures in the elderly. Geriatric Care. 2018;4:7726.CrossRef
30.
Kristensen PK, Röck ND, Christensen HC, Pedersen AB. The Danish multidisciplinary hip fracture registry 13-year results from a population-based cohort of hip fracture patients. Clin Epidemiol. 2020;12:9–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Sund R, Juntunen M, Lüthje P, Huusko T, Häkkinen U. Monitoring the performance of hip fracture treatment in Finland. Ann Med. 2011;43(Suppl 1):S39-46.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Voeten SC, Arends AJ, Wouters MWJM, Blom BJ, Heetveld MJ, Slee-Valentijn MS, Krijnen P, Schipper IB, Hegeman JHH; Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA) Group. The Dutch hip fracture audit: evaluation of the quality of multidisciplinary hip fracture care in the Netherlands. Arch Osteoporos. 2019;14(1):28.CrossRef
33.
Hughes AJ, Hennessy O, Brennan L, Rana A, Murphy CG. How accurate is the data provided to the Irish Hip Fracture Database? Ir J Med Sci. 2019;188(1):13–8.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Hjelholt TJ, Edwards NM, Vesterager JD, Kristensen PK, Pedersen AB. The positive predictive value of hip fracture diagnoses and surgical procedure codes in the Danish multidisciplinary hip fracture registry and the Danish national patient registry. Clin Epidemiol. 2020;12:123–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Lawrence JE, Cundall-Curry D, Stewart ME, Fountain DM, Gooding CR. The use of an electronic health record system reduces errors in the National Hip Fracture Database. Age Ageing. 2019;48(2):285–90.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Cundall-Curry DJ, Lawrence JE, Fountain DM, Gooding CR. Data errors in the National hip fracture database: a local validation study. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10):1406–9.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Voeten SC, van Bodegom-Vos L, Hegeman JH, Wouters MWJM, Krijnen P, Schipper IB. Hospital staff participation in a national hip fracture audit: facilitators and barriers. Arch Osteoporos. 2019;14(1):110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Diagnosedaten der Krankenhäuser ab 2000 (Eckdaten der vollstationären Patienten und Patientinnen). Gliederungsmerkmale: Jahre, Behandlungs-/Wohnort, ICD-10 (Primärquelle: Statistisches Bundesamt, Krankenhausstatistik–Diagnosedaten der Patienten und Patientinnen in Krankenhäusern). In www.gbe-bund.de (Thematische Recherche: Startseite > Krankheiten/ Gesundheitsprobleme > Skelett, Muskeln, Bindegewebe–Frakturen > Tabelle (gestaltbar): Diagnosedaten der Krankenhäuser (Eckdaten der vollstationären Patienten und Patientinnen)). (Accessed 19 June 2021)
39.
Jiménez-Mola S, Calvo-Lobo C, Idoate-Gil J, Seco-Calvo J. Functionality, comorbidity, complication & surgery of hip fracture in older adults by age distribution. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2018;64(5):420–7.CrossRef
40.
Voeten SC, Nijmeijer WS, Vermeer M, Schipper IB, Hegeman JH; DHFA Taskforce study group. Validation of the fracture mobility score against the parker mobility score in hip fracture patients. Injury. 2020;51(2):395–9.CrossRef
41.
Fox KM, Magaziner J, Hebel JR, Kenzora JE, Kashner TM. Intertrochanteric versus femoral neck hip fractures: differential characteristics, treatment, and sequelae. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999;54(12):M635–40.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Muhm M, Amann M, Hofmann A, Ruffing T. Veränderung der patientenklientel mit hüftgelenknahen femurfrakturen in der letzten dekade: Inzidenz, Alter, Nebenerkrankungen und Liegezeiten [Changes in the patient population with proximal femur fractures over the last decade: incidence, age, comorbidities, and length of stay]. Unfallchirurg. 2018;121(8):649–56.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Butt FF, Hussain AS, Khan AM, Sultan M. Implants for extracapsular neck of femur fracture dynamic hip screw versus intramedullary nailing. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2017;29(4):697–701.PubMed
44.
Zhang K, Zhang S, Yang J, Dong W, Wang S, Cheng Y, Al-Qwbani M, Wang Q, Yu B. Proximal femoral nail vs dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:1628–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Sharma A, Sethi A, Sharma S. Treatment of stable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur with proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw: a comparative study. Rev Bras Ortop. 2017;53(4):477–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Ma HH, Chou TA, Tsai SW, Chen CF, Wu PK, Chen WM. Outcomes of internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for elderly patients with an undisplaced femoral neck fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):320.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Kristensen TB, Dybvik E, Kristoffersen M, Dale H, Engesæter LB, Furnes O, Gjertsen JE. Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Data from the Norwegian hip fracture register. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478(1):90–100.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Fenelon C, Murphy EP, Pomeroy E, Murphy RP, Curtin W, Murphy CG. Perioperative mortality after cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(2):777-787.e1.PubMedCrossRef
49.
White SM, Moppett IK, Griffiths R. Outcome by mode of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. An observational audit of 65535 patients in a national dataset. Anaesthesia. 2014;69(3):224–30.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Ilango S, Pulle RC, Bell J, Kuys SS. General versus spinal anaesthesia and postoperative delirium in an orthogeriatric population. Australas J Ageing. 2016;35(1):42–7.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Guay J, Parker MJ, Gajendragadkar PR, Kopp S. Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2(2):CD000521.PubMed
52.
Kowark A, Adam C, Ahrens J, Bajbouj M, Bollheimer C, Borowski M, Dodel R, Dolch M, Hachenberg T, Henzler D, Hildebrand F, Hilgers RD, Hoeft A, Isfort S, Kienbaum P, Knobe M, Knuefermann P, Kranke P, Laufenberg-Feldmann R, Nau C, Neuman MD, Olotu C, Rex C, Rossaint R, Sanders RD, Schmidt R, Schneider F, Siebert H, Skorning M, Spies C, Vicent O, Wappler F, Wirtz DC, Wittmann M, Zacharowski K, Zarbock A, Coburn M; iHOPE study group. Improve hip fracture outcome in the elderly patient (iHOPE): a study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of spinal versus general anaesthesia. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e023609.PubMedCrossRef
53.
54.
Grimes JP, Gregory PM, Noveck H, Butler MS, Carson JL. The effects of time-to-surgery on mortality and morbidity in patients following hip fracture. Am J Med. 2002;112(9):702–9.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Vidán MT, Sánchez E, Gracia Y, Marañón E, Vaquero J, Serra JA. Causes and effects of surgical delay in patients with hip fracture: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(4):226–33.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Schoeneberg C, Aigner R, Pass B, Volland R, Eschbach D, Peiris SE, Ruchholtz S, Lendemans S, AltersTraumaRegister DGU. Effect of time-to-surgery on in-house mortality during orthogeriatric treatment following hip fracture: a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 16,236 patients of the AltersTraumaRegister DGU®. Injury. 2021;52(3):554–61.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Moyet J, Deschasse G, Marquant B, Mertl P, Bloch F. Which is the optimal orthogeriatric care model to prevent mortality of elderly subjects post hip fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis based on current clinical practice. Int Orthop. 2019;43(6):1449–54.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Grigoryan KV, Javedan H, Rudolph JL. Orthogeriatric care models and outcomes in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(3):e49-55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Werner M, Krause O, Macke C, Herold L, Ranker A, Krettek C, Liodakis E. Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):371.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Wagner P, Fuentes P, Diaz A, Martinez F, Amenabar P, Schweitzer D, Botello E, Gac H. Comparison of complications and length of hospital stay between orthopedic and orthogeriatric treatment in elderly patients with a hip fracture. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2012;3(2):55–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Rizk P, Morris W, Oladeji P, Huo M. Review of postoperative delirium in geriatric patients undergoing hip surgery. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2016;7(2):100–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
Jennnison T, Yarlagadda R. A case-control study of 30-day mortality in periprosthetic hip fractures and hip fractures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020;102(3):229–31.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Currie C. Hip fracture audit: creating a “critical mass of expertise and enthusiasm for hip fracture care”? Injury. 2018;49(8):1418–23.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Leal J, Gray AM, Prieto-Alhambra D, Arden NK, Cooper C, Javaid MK, Judge A; REFReSH study group. Impact of hip fracture on hospital care costs: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(2):549–58.CrossRef
65.
Neuburger J, Currie C, Wakeman R, Tsang C, Plant F, De Stavola B, Cromwell DA, van der Meulen J. The impact of a national clinician-led audit initiative on care and mortality after hip fracture in England: an external evaluation using time trends in non-audit data. Med Care. 2015;53(8):686–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
Gjertsen JE, Dybvik E, Furnes O, Fevang JM, Havelin LI, Matre K, Engesæter LB. Improved outcome after hip fracture surgery in Norway. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(5):505–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Edwards GA, Metcalfe AJ, Johansen A, O’Doherty D. Performance monitoring in hip fracture surgery–how big a database do we really need? Injury. 2010;41(4):374–6.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Slobogean GP, Giannoudis PV, Frihagen F, Forte ML, Morshed S, Bhandari M. Bigger data, bigger problems. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(Suppl 12):S43–6.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries
Authors
Maic Werner
Christian Macke
Manfred Gogol
Christian Krettek
Emmanouil Liodakis
Publication date
08-10-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Care
Published in
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 1863-9933
Electronic ISSN: 1863-9941
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01797-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 3/2022 Go to the issue

Review Article

High-volume center analysis and systematic review of stump appendicitis: solving the pending issue

Original Article

Using blood glucose and lactate levels for early detection of venous congestion following a free flap procedure for lower extremity open fractures

Original Article

Complete hemispheric exposure vs. superior sagittal sinus sparing craniectomy: incidence of shear-bleeding and shunt-dependency

Original Article

Is there a need for standardized postoperative X-rays after operative treatment of clavicular fractures?

Original Article

Neurosurgical emergency management during the lockdown period in health care regions in Spain with different COVID-19 impact: lessons learned to improve outcomes on the future waves

Original Article

Comparison of manual statements from out-of-hospital trauma training programs and a national guideline on treatment of patients with severe and multiple injuries