| Abstract Some physicians still give insufficient  consideration to the long-term consequences of osteoporosis, even though  affected patients who suffer one fragility fracture are three to five  times more likely to incur another. Mechanical fixation devices and bone  graft substitutes are being used effectively by orthopedic surgeons to  restore ambulation for many patients, but the best course of action to  treat osteoporosis for the long term, and to maintain patients’  mobility, is a multidisciplinary program involving family internists,  orthopedists, and other caregivers.  Background The statistics are staggering: in the U.S.  today osteoporosis is estimated to affect 20 to 30 million individuals.  One-third of all women between 60 and 70 years of age, and two-thirds of  all women over 80 years of age develop osteoporosis. Their delicate  bones carry a 50 percent lifetime risk of a fragility fracture,  one-third of which (16 percent) involve the hip. The current annual  incidence of fragility fractures approaches 1.7 million (400,000 hip  fractures), with an annual healthcare expenditure of approximately $15  billion. These numbers are expected to quadruple by 2050, due, in part,  to the aging of our population.1 The number of North Americans more than 55 years old is expected to increase by at least 35 million in the next 20 years.2  Yet, how well this population is able to remain physically active will  likely depend, at least in part, upon how well orthopedists diagnose,  treat, and prevent age-related disease and injury. Fragility fractures, defined as those resulting  from a low trauma event, affect nearly 50 percent of women and 30  percent of men over the age of 50.3 In  the elderly population, osteoporosis is the most common cause of  fractures, which occur most frequently in the spine. These fractures  occur with significantly increased frequency in female patients 70 years  of age or older, and in male patients 80 or older.4  Although fragility (or insufficiency) fractures are ordinarily  associated with the elderly and osteoporosis, this is not always the  case, as they can occur in any patient with an underlying bone  deficiency. (For further discussion of the causes of weakened bone, see  Reese: Vitamin D and Bone Disease, in this issue). The challenge for orthopedic management of  these fractures is achieving fixation and stability. Fragility fractures  in patients with bone deficiency are particularly common in the spine  (vertebral compression), wrist, and hip. While more than 90 percent of  fractures occur as the result of a fall, up to 10 percent of hip  fractures result from minimal or no trauma, and can occur during routine  activities of daily living. The simple stress of standing or sitting  down may exceed the compressive strength of bone in the femoral (hip)  neck or spinal vertebra. An elderly female with a documented vertebral  fracture has a more than 50 percent risk of suffering an additional  fracture within one year. Further, once a patient suffers a fragility  fracture his or her risk of a future fracture increases 2 to 10-fold.5 History, physical examination, laboratory  testing, and x-rays may all be necessary to make the diagnosis and to  distinguish simple fragility fractures from other more sinister  pathological conditions. Additional diagnostic modalities in less  obvious cases include a bone scan (>36 hours), MRI scan, or less  commonly, a CT scan. In such cases, in addition to metabolic/endocrine  profiling, routine blood work should include a Sedimentation rate,  C-reactive protein, and - in males - PSA screening.
 
 Fixation and Stability Mechanical Once diagnosed, the orthopedic goals of  fracture management are straightforward - reestablish length, alignment,  and stability. On occasion, fracture “replacement” may be indicated and  necessary to manage pain and to restore function. In osteoporotic patients with deficient bone,  stability is the true challenge. Standard fracture devices (pins,  intramedulary rods, plates and screws) often fail, since the bone is  inadequate to support them, and develops cavities where the devices are  secured. When conventional attempts to reduce or correct the  malalignment cannot eliminate the intrinsic instability, specialized  orthopedic devices and augmentative implants are needed to overcome the  challenge: In the case of wrist fractures, stability can  be improved and length and alignment can be restored by spanning the  fracture with external fixation devicesthat are secured with pins and  screws peripheral to the injury site. Recently, anatomically configured  wristbuttressplates (Figure 1) with locking screws/pins have been  developed to enhance stability of the fragments. In these devices, the  screws have threaded heads which “lock” into the threaded holes of the  plate, thereby not only gaining purchase on the osteoporotic bony  fragments, but also maintaining their stable position. Locking plates  have also gained popularity in general trauma applications. When  combined with a supplemental bone graft at the fracture site, these  devices can solve the vast majority of geriatric wrist fractures not  amenable to simple closed reduction and casting. 
                
                    
                        |  |  
                        | Figure 1: “DVR” Locking plate by Hand  Innovations; threaded screw holes and drill guides facilitate anatomic  positioning. (X-ray shows lateral view of fractured radius.) |  Hip fractures can be divided into three broad  categories: subcapital (i.e. in the femoral neck), intertrochanteric,  and subtrochanteric (the trochanters are the bony prominences below the  femoral neck where the major hip muscles insert). Subcapital  fractures are classified by the degree of displacement, but though these  anatomical classifications should be useful as a guide to selecting  fixation methods, they are not always reliable in patients with advanced  osteoporosis. Pinning of even non-displaced or minimally displaced  fractures in this population may fail unpredictably and require a second  operation to insert a prosthesis, so many surgeons favor preemptive  partial hipreplacement (endoprosthesis) for all subcapital fractures  (Figure 2). In either case, such a major open procedure in an elderly  patient on a semi-emergent basis constitutes a substantial stress that  increases the risk of morbidity. Unfortunately, in most cases the  surgical options are limited, as many of these fragility fractures occur  despite minimal or, in some cases, no trauma. The hip simply fails and  the patient falls. 
                
                    
                        |  |  
                        | Figure 2: Bipolar hip endoprosthesis replaces the fractured femoral head and is frequently cemented distally.
 |  Intertrochanteric (and less commonly  subtrochanteric) fractures, on the other hand, typically result from a  fall and are readily amenable for open reduction internal fixation  (ORIF). While the sliding hip compression screw (with or without cement  supplementation) has been the gold standard, intramedullary nail devices  with an intersecting blade-plate have grown in popularity (Figure 3).  They can be done less invasively and provide enhanced biomechanical  fixation in selected cases. Additional screws and buttress plates can  also be used as necessary.
 
 Bone grafts & substitutes Wrist and hip fractures present biomechanical  challenges that must be addressed with specialized implants and  judicious use of bone grafts and/or graft substitutes. As defined, a  “bone graft” consists of a portion that contains actual cortical and/or  cancellous hard bone (osteoconductive), and a portion that contains bone  cells and protein factors that induce the formation of new bone  (osteoinductive). Together they can fill the primary defect and  stimulate formation of callus at the fracture site. Autogenous grafts  from the iliac crest provide both components without the need for  allogeneic donor bone, which carries the risks of transmissible agents  and a host-versus-graft response. Donor site morbidity and the expense of local  bone banking, however, have spawned the commercial availability of  various types of bone graft products, both osteoconductive and inductive.  Onlay cortical strut allograft and cancellous “croutons in a bottle”  are presently stocked in most busy hospital centers. Combined with the  patients’ own blood, the addition of a commercially prepared  osteoinductive agent can generate a “super graft.” Such inductive agents  include processed de-mineralized bone matrix (bone morphogenic  protein-BMD) and/or preparation of other intraoperative blood product  (platelet-rich plasma), all of which have been proven to enhance healing  and the formation of callus. Osteotrophic factors have been shown to  stimulate transformation of marrow progenitor stem cells into  osteoblasts, the primary cells in bone matrix formation. These super  grafts have been successfully used in open and minimally invasive  procedures to enhance healing of fractures in osteoporotic patients.  They enhance initial stability and promote healing through early  integration into bone. Other types of bone fillers may likewise  provide immediate stability. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement  is an inert two-part polymer used in selected total joint replacements,  especially in the elderly. Used judiciously, it has proven most helpful  in hip and spinal compression fractures. Performed percutaneously,  vertebroplasties likewise have documented benefits in reducing pain and  progressive kyphotic deformities for simple fragility fractures with  wedge compression. Recently, biocompatible calcium-phosphate compounds.  They harden like cement, yet over time are gradually replaced by normal  bone (re-substitution), which is typically seen as part of physiologic  bony remodeling once primary healing has taken place. 
                
                    
                        |  |  
                        | Figure 3: Intramedullary devices can provide excellent fixation for unstable peritrochanteric fractures. |  While technical considerations are the initial  challenge with any fragility fracture, modulation of the healing process  has gained much interest among internists, rheumatologists and  orthopedists. Parenteral biophosphonates have been successful in  treating osteoporosis through inhibition of normal bone resorption by  osteoclasts. They shift the balance of osteoblast/osteoclast activity,  and thus increase bone density (as confirmed by DEXA scan and actual  bone biopsy). Second and third generation biophosphonates are now  available and they not only increase measurable bone density but also  decrease the incidence of hip, wrist and spinal compression fractures.  Additionally, stimulation of osteoblast proliferation and metabolic  activity through hormonal manipulation continues to develop as a viable  modality. Calcintonin, mini-dose estrogen, and most recently,  recombinant human parathyroid hormone (rhPTH-1,34), have shown great  promise when administered through close protocols. Prevention The estimated annual cost of fragility fractures in the United States is $15-17 billion.6  Patients who have suffered one fragility fracture are three to five  times more likely to have another fracture within one year, especially a  spinal compression fracture. Hip fracture patients have a 25 percent  higher risk of mortality within one year; a 25 percent risk of losing  their ability to earn a living and their independence (likely leading to  nursing home placement); and a 50 percent chance of never regaining  pre-fracture ambulation. For these reasons, the need to treat these  patients aggressively and initiate post-discharge medical protocols for  untreated osteoporosis has never been stronger. To improve awareness of fragility fractures in  the osteoporotic patient, it is necessary to maintain ongoing education  of referring physicians, medical staff, and patients. One research study  conducted by St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada, found that a  coordinated post-fracture osteoporosis education and treatment program  for patients with fragility fractures and their caregivers resulted in  more than 95 percent of the patients being diagnosed, treated, and  referred for osteoporotic care.7  Western Infirmary Hospital and other leading centers in Glasgow,  Scotland have championed these measures and made a substantial positive  impact on morbidity and national healthcare costs.8  Through multidisciplinary efforts currently underway at Lancaster  General Hospital, similar protocols have been set in motion to ensure  that patients with fragility fractures are evaluated and educated, and  that appropriate management is initiated with follow-up. The essential steps to ongoing care in an osteoporotic patient who suffers a fragility fracture include:9 
                The patient must be identified as an individual with a high risk for future fracture.Responsibility for ongoing evaluation and treatment must be assumed by a specific physician or caregiver.Clinical testing must be performed to diagnose osteoporosis.Etiology of the patient’s low bone density should be determined.Osteoporosis should be treated pharmacologically or with other means.Patients should be educated about home safety, fall prevention, and protection of their injured site from further damage.Patients should receive routine follow-up evaluations. 
 ConclusionsNew and better fixation devices  as well as bone graft substitutes are providing additional surgical  options for the osteoporotic patient who suffers a fragility fracture.  These advances increase the likelihood that patients can maintain their  mobility. Yet, as surgeons who care for these patients, our goal should  be more than stability and fixation of the fracture. We work as part of  an orthopedic/medical team to definitively determine the etiology of the  fracture, fix the fractured bone, and then develop ongoing treatment  and evaluation plans specific to the osteoporotic patient. We maintain a  keen awareness and education about osteoporosis and its life-long  impact on patients, and work in tandem with primary care physicians and  other clinicians to ensure these patients receive the education and  long-term care they need to prevent future fractures, and to enhance  their quality of life. 
                Orwoll, Eric S., Bliziotes, Michael. Osteoporosis: Pathophysiology and Clinical Management. NEJM. 348:2269-2270, 2003.Statistical Information Staff, Population Division, U.S. Census  Bureau. Projections of the total resident population by 5-year age  groups, and sex with special age categories: middle series, 2016-2020.  Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t3-e.txtBouxsein, Mary L., Kaufman, John, Tosi, Laura, Cummings,  Steven, Lane, Joseph, Johnell, Olof. Recommendations for Optimal Care of  the Fragility Fracture Patient to Reduce the Risk of Future Fracture. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 12(6):385 395.Rodan, Gideon, Reszka, Alfred. Osteoporosis and Bisphosphonates. J Bone Joint Surg AM. 85:8-12, 2003.Bogoch, Earl R., Elliot-Gibson, Victoria, Beaton, Dorcas E.,  Jamal, Sophie A., Josse, Robert G., Murray, Timothy M. Effective  Initiation of Osteoporosis Diagnosis and Treatment for Patients with a  Fragility Fracture in an Orthopaedic Environment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 88: 25-33, 2006.6. Hoerger, TJ, Downs, KE, Lakshamanan, MC, Lindrooth, RC,  Plouffr I, Wendling, B, West, SL, Ohsfeldt, RL. Healthcare use among US  women age 45 an older: total costs for selected postmenopausal health  risks. J. Women’s Health Gender Based Medicine. 8:1077-89, 1999.Bogoch, Earl R., Elliot-Gibson, Victoria, Beaton, Dorcas E.,  Jamal, Sophie A., Josse, Robert G., Murray, Timothy M. Effective  Initiation of Osteoporosis Diagnosis and Treatment for Patients with a  Fragility Fracture in an Orthopaedic Environment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 88: 25-33, 2006.Ray, NF, Chan, JK, Thamer, M, Melton, LJ. Medical expenditures  for treatment of osteoporotic fractures in the US in 1995: report for  the National Osteoporosis Foundation. J. Bone Miner Res. 12:24-35, 1997.Kaufman, John D., Bolander, Mark E., Bunta, Andrew D., Edwards,  Beatrice J., Fitzpatrick, Lorraine, Simonelli, Christine. Barriers and  Solutions to Osteoporosis Care in Patients with a Hip Fracture. J Bone Joint Surg. Am. (85): 1837-1843. 2003. J. Paul Lyet, M.D., Ph.D.Medical Director, Lancaster General Orthopedic Center
 Lancaster Orthopedic Group
 231 Granite Run Drive
 Lancaster, PA 17601
 717-560-4200
 jplyet@lancasterortho.com
 |