Incidence of subsequent osteoporotic fractures after distal radius fractures and mortality of the subsequent distal radius fractures: a retrospective analysis of claims data of the Korea National Health Insurance Service.

A better understanding of the features of subsequent fractures after distal radius fracture (DRF) is important for the prevention of further osteoporotic fractures. This study found that the cumulative incidence of subsequent osteoporotic fractures in South Korea increased over time and that the mortality rates of subsequent DRFs were lower than those of first-time DRFs. INTRODUCTION: We examined the incidence of osteoporotic fractures following distal radius fractures (DRFs) and the mortality rate after subsequent DRFs using claims data from the Korea National Health Insurance (KNHI) Service. METHODS: We identified records for 41,417 patients with first-time DRFs in 2012. The occurrence of osteoporotic fractures of the spine, hip, wrist, and humerus at least 6 months after the index DRF was tracked through 2016. All fractures were identified by specific diagnosis and procedure codes. One-year mortality rates and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for initial and subsequent DRFs were calculated for all patients. RESULTS: The 4-year cumulative incidence of all subsequent osteoporotic fractures was 14.74% (6105/41,417; 9.47% in men, 15.9% in women). The number of associated subsequent fractures was 2850 for the spine (46.68%), 2271 for the wrist (37.2%), 708 for the hip (11.6%), and 276 for the humerus (4.52%). The cumulative mortality rate 1 year after the first-time and subsequent DRF was 1.47% and 0.71%, respectively, and the overall SMR was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.37-1.61) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.42-1.21), respectively. CONCLUSION: The cumulative incidence of osteoporotic fractures following DRFs increased over the study period and was higher among women. The cumulative mortality rates and SMRs of subsequent DRFs were lower than those of first-time DRFs at the 1-year follow-up. Given the increasing incidence rate of DRFs, the incidence of subsequent osteoporotic fractures may also increase.

Reliability and validity of measuring version of the acetabular component.

A variety of radiological methods of measuring version of the acetabular component after total hip replacement (THR) have been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of six methods (those of Lewinnek; Widmer; Hassan et al; Ackland, Bourne and Uhthoff; Liaw et al; and Woo and Morrey) that are currently in use. In 36 consecutive patients who underwent THR, version of the acetabular component was measured by three independent examiners on plain radiographs using these six methods and compared with measurements using CT scans. The intra- and interobserver reliabilities of each measurement were estimated. All measurements on both radiographs and CT scans had excellent intra- and interobserver reliability and the results from each of the six methods correlated well with the CT measurements. However, measurements made using the methods of Widmer and of Ackland, Bourne and Uhthoff were significantly different from the CT measurements (both p < 0.001), whereas measurements made using the remaining four methods were similar to the CT measurements. With regard to reliability and convergent validity, we recommend the use of the methods described by Lewinnek, Hassan et al, Liaw et al and Woo and Morrey for measurement of version of the acetabular component.

Persistence with intravenous zoledronate in elderly patients with osteoporosis.

UNLABELLED: The present study evaluates the proportion of patients who had re-infusion of intravenous zoledronate after first administration and identifies the factors that contribute to discontinuation. INTRODUCTION: In terms of persistence, annual administration of zoledronate seems to overcome a shortcoming of oral bisphosphonate. However, little information is available concerning persistence with intravenous zoledronate for osteoporosis in a usual care setting. The aim of this study was to assess the persistence of intravenous zoledronate after first administration and to identify the factors that contribute to its discontinuation. METHODS: A questionnaire survey concerning the second administration of zoledronate was performed on 259 patients, who had been administered with first intravenous zoledronate injection between January 2009 and December 2009, when they visit for second injection. The questionnaire asked whether patients were administered a second zoledronate injection or not, and non-persistent patients were asked why they declined the second infusion. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-two patients revisited our outpatient clinic a year after first visit, and 94 patients (36.3%, 94/259) agreed to a second injection. Of the 136 patients that completed the questionnaire, 47 refused second administration and requested a change to oral bisphosphonate. Thirty-nine of the 47 patients (83%) stated that post-infusion syndrome was the reason why they refused the second administration. CONCLUSION: Although the effects of annual intravenous zoledronate are guaranteed to last for a year, this study shows that only a third of patients agree to second administration. The factors associated with discontinuation were male gender, adverse effects (especially post-infusion syndrome) and under-explanation of intravenous drug. These findings should be of concern to clinicians and indicate that patients should be informed before the administration.