Non-hip, non-spine fractures drive healthcare utilization following a fracture: the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW).

UNLABELLED: We evaluated healthcare utilization associated with treating fracture types in >51,000 women aged ≥55 years. Over the course of 1 year, there were five times more non-hip, non-spine fractures than hip or spine fractures, resulting in twice as many days of hospitalization and rehabilitation/nursing home care for non-hip, non-spine fractures. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to evaluate medical healthcare utilization associated with treating several types of fractures in women ≥55 years from various geographic regions. METHODS: Information from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) was collected via self-administered patient questionnaires at baseline and year 1 (n = 51,491). Self-reported clinically recognized low-trauma fractures at year 1 were classified as incident spine, hip, wrist/hand, arm/shoulder, pelvis, rib, leg, and other fractures. Healthcare utilization data were self-reported and included whether the fracture was treated at a doctor's office/clinic or at a hospital. Patients were asked if they had undergone surgery or been treated at a rehabilitation center or nursing home. RESULTS: During 1-year follow-up, there were 195 spine, 134 hip, and 1,654 non-hip, non-spine fractures. Clinical vertebral fractures resulted in 617 days of hospitalization and 512 days of rehabilitation/nursing home care; hip fractures accounted for 1,306 days of hospitalization and 1,650 days of rehabilitation/nursing home care. Non-hip, non-spine fractures resulted in 3,805 days in hospital and 5,186 days of rehabilitation/nursing home care. CONCLUSIONS: While hip and vertebral fractures are well recognized for their associated increase in health resource utilization, non-hip, non-spine fractures, by virtue of their 5-fold greater number, require significantly more healthcare resources.

Regional and age-related variations in the proportions of hip fractures and major fractures among postmenopausal women: the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women.

UNLABELLED: We examined variations in proportions of hip fractures and major fractures among postmenopausal women using the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). The proportion of major fractures that were hip fractures varied with age and region, whereas variations in the proportion of fractures that were major fractures appeared modest. INTRODUCTION: In many countries, the World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool calculates the probability of major fractures by assuming a uniform age-associated proportion of major fractures that are hip fractures in different countries. We further explored this assumption, using data from the GLOW. METHODS: GLOW is an observational population-based study of 60,393 non-institutionalized women aged ≥55 years who had visited practices within the previous 2 years. Main outcome measures were self-reported prevalent fractures after the age of 45 years and incident fractures during the 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The adjusted proportion of prevalent and incident major fractures after the age of 45 years that were hip fractures was higher in North America (16%, 17%) than in northern (13%, 12%) and southern Europe (10%, 10%), respectively. The proportion of incident major fractures that were hip fractures increased more than five-fold with age, from 6.6% among 55-59-year-olds to 34% among those aged ≥85 years. Regional and age-associated variations in the proportion of all incident fractures that were major fractures were less marked, not exceeding 16% and 28%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that there may be regional differences in the proportion of major fractures that are hip fractures in postmenopausal women. In contrast, the regional and age-related variations in the proportion of fractures that are major fractures appear to be modest. However, because of the limited number of fractures in our sample, further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Outcomes of Full-Right-Full-Left Split Liver Transplantation in Adults in the USA: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Splitting a liver for utilization in adult/pediatric recipients has been shown to decrease mortality on the wait list without increasing the overall risk of long-term graft failure compared to a whole graft. However, splitting a single donor organ for two adult recipients, full-right-full-left split liver transplantation (FRFLSLT), to overcome organ shortage is still considered controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the outcome of FRFLSLT comparing full-right (FR) and full-left (FL) with whole liver (WL) allografts in adults (1998-2010) using UNOS standard transplant analysis and research (STAR) file. Methods: Unadjusted allograft and patient survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Adjusted analyses of survival were conducted controlling for propensity for WL allograft. RESULTS: There were 83,313 cases of WL, 651 FR and 117 FL. Significant differences were evident in the unadjusted cohort between recipients who received FR and FL including donor, cold ischemic time, and days on transplant waiting list. Use of FL allograft resulted in a trend toward lower graft and patient survival compared to WL and FR, which was not statistically significant (p=0.07). In the matched cohort, FL hemiliver allograft had no detrimental effect on the allograft or patient survival after split liver transplantation when compared to FR and WL. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for donor and recipient characteristics, there was no difference in allograft or patient survival with the use of FL, FR, or WL after liver transplantation in adults. FRFLSLT is a valuable and safe option to expand the donor pool.