4.7 Review

Expert consensus on the bone repair strategy for osteoporotic fractures in China

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.989648

Keywords

osteoporosis; fracture; bone repair; expert consensus; biomaterials

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China Major Research Program Key Project
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  4. Shanghai Health System Excellent Discipline Leader Program
  5. [2018YFC2001500]
  6. [91749204]
  7. [81771491]
  8. [2017BR011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Osteoporotic fractures, prevalent in the elderly, bring significant social burdens. These fractures are characterized by poor bone quality, weak repair capacity, instability, and high failure rate of internal fixation. Common osteoporotic bone defects, such as proximal humerus, distal radius, tibia plateau, calcaneus, and spine, require appropriate materials for repair. The consensus from the Osteoporosis Group of Chinese Orthopaedic Association aims to standardize clinical practice in bone repair of osteoporotic fractures.
Osteoporotic fractures, also known as fragility fractures, are prevalent in the elderly and bring tremendous social burdens. Poor bone quality, weak repair capacity, instability, and high failure rate of internal fixation are main characteristics of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporotic bone defects are common and need to be repaired by appropriate materials. Proximal humerus, distal radius, tibia plateau, calcaneus, and spine are common osteoporotic fractures with bone defect. Here, the consensus from the Osteoporosis Group of Chinese Orthopaedic Association concentrates on the epidemiology, characters, and management strategies of common osteoporotic fractures with bone defect to standardize clinical practice in bone repair of osteoporotic fractures.

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