4.7 Article

Reduced Awareness for Osteoporosis in Distal Radius Fracture Patients Compared to Patients with Proximal Femur Fractures

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040848

Keywords

awareness; osteoporosis; proximal femur fracture; wrist fracture; distal forearm fracture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that overall willingness of osteoporosis patients to undergo further diagnosis was low, with patients with distal radius fractures showing significantly lower awareness compared to proximal femur fracture patients. Younger patients tended to underestimate the risks of osteoporosis.
Purpose: The present study is aiming to evaluate patients' awareness to participate in further diagnostics for osteoporosis and to find out if there are significant differences with regards to fracture site. Methods: Patients at risk for underlying osteoporosis (female >60 and male >70 years) undergoing surgical treatment for a distal radius fracture (DRF) or a proximal femur fracture (PFF) were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing the awareness for underlying osteoporosis. Furthermore, dual-X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans were analyzed. Results: Overall, 150 patients (w = 122/m = 28, mean age 79.9 years (+/- 8.6)) were included, of these, 36 patients suffered a DRF and 114 patients a PFF. Of these, 68 out of the 150 patients (45.3%) considered that an examination was necessary, whereas in PFF patients the awareness was higher than in the DRF Group (41% vs. 32%). Conclusions: The patients' willingness to undergo further diagnostics for osteoporosis was generally poor. DRFs are frequently accompanied by a lower limitation of quality of life compared to PFF, which might be causative for even poorer awareness in these patients. Especially younger patients (age 60-70 years) with a distal radius fracture seemed to underestimate osteoporosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available