Pelvic ring fracture in the older adults after minor pelvic trauma - is it an innocent injury?

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of severe hemorrhage as a potentially life-threatening complication in elderly patients with isolated, low-energy pelvic ring fractures, which may be more common than previously described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an academic level 1 trauma center, including 579 patients aged over 65 who suffered from isolated low-energy pelvic fractures between 2006 and 2020. Pelvic computer tomography (CT) scans, with or without contrast, were performed and reviewed for patients with suspected posterior ring injury or bleeding. Patients without CT scans were excluded from the study. RESULTS: Among the 123 patients with isolated pubic rami fractures, 30 (24.4 %) had bleeding with a significant hemoglobin drop (>2 g%). 21(70 %) patients of these had posterior pelvic ring involvement as compared to 45 who did not bleed (51 %, p = 0.07). There was a significantly larger proportion of patient who received anticoagulant therapy (ACT) with posterior ring injury among the bleeding group (20 % vs 3.2 % p < 0.01). Treatment included blood transfusion (19/123, 15.5 %), and arterial angiographic embolization (5/123, 4 %). No complications related to angio-embolization were observed, and all patients survived the initial 90-day period. No other source of bleeding was identified in any of these patients. CONCLUSION: Severe pelvic hemorrhage in the older adults due to a minor pelvic injury after a low-energy trauma is not an uncommon complication, especially with combination of ACT and posterior pelvic ring fracture. This indicates that these injuries more challenging than previously believed. Geriatric pelvic ring injuries should be monitored carefully with serial blood counts, and low threshold for imaging including contrast enhanced CT scans and angiography.

Home Versus Hospital Rehabilitation of Older Adults Following Hip Fracture Yields Similar Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

The increase in hip fractures (HF) due to aging of the population and the rise in attractiveness of services provided at home following the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasize the need to compare outcomes of home versus hospital HF rehabilitation. To date, studies comparing the 2 services have focused primarily on clinical outcomes rather than patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This longitudinal observational study evaluated PROs of older adults with HF in the 2 settings. The SF36 questionnaire was used to measure PROs 3 times after surgery. The first PRO was retrospective and reflected pre-fracture health status. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effect logistic regression were used. Of 86 patients participating in the study, 41 had home rehabilitation and 45 had hospital rehabilitation. In both groups, the mental and physical scores plummeted 2 weeks after the HF, compared to pre-fracture status. The difference in improvement from pre-fracture status to recovery in both groups, were not significantly (P < .05) different, except for the pain domain. PROs of home versus hospital rehabilitation were similar, suggesting that rehabilitation at home can be as effective as hospital rehabilitation for suitable patients. This knowledge can improve quality of care in an aging global population.

Utilising patient-reported outcomes for goal-directed therapy of hip fracture patients: a sequential controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture patients (HFPs) frequently have multiple underlying conditions, necessitating that agreed-upon goals take these complications into consideration. Communication regarding goals between medical-personnel and patients is not always effective. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can outline personal goals and help promote quality health care in HFPs. Few studies have been published on this topic. The study's aim was to outline the process of using PROs for goal-directed therapy among HFPs. METHODS: This sequential controlled trial was conducted among HFPs from two medical centres. The control and the intervention group received integrative rehabilitation. PROs were measured in both groups using the SF36 questionnaire three times postsurgery: 24-48 hours, 2 weeks and 3 months. During the first round of questioning, only the intervention group was asked 'what matters most to you?' during the rehabilitative process. Accordingly, agreed-upon goals that were determined by the SF36's eight topics and were incorporated into the HFP's rehabilitative process. A Likert scale of 1-5, '1' indicating no-achievement and '5' full-achievement, was used to assess the goal achievement 4-6 months post-fracture. RESULTS: 84 HFPs participated in the study: 40 and 44 in the intervention and control group, respectively. In both groups, PROs declined after the HF, then improved somewhat 3 months later, but did not return to prefracture scores. Among the intervention group, 39% reached their specific goals (Likert level 5). Patients who achieved their goals had better PROs in comparison to others. The intervention group indicated PROs helped them articulate their desires and introduced them to new areas of care. CONCLUSIONS: Shifting from asking 'what's the matter?' to 'what matters most to you?' can improve the understanding of HFPs' own priorities, promote quality outcomes and enhance patient-centred care. Using PROs as a guide for goal-directed therapy can create a more inclusive process that includes the patients' most important health determinants and needs.