Skip to main content
Download PDF

Risk factors for subsequent fractures in hip fracture patients: a nested case-control study

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 19, Article number: 348 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The risk factors for subsequent fractures following an initial hip fracture are not entirely understood. This study examined the clinical characteristics of hip fracture patients to identify potential risk factors associated with a higher risk of experiencing subsequent fractures.

Methods

We conducted a nested case-control study using data from the Chinese PLA General Hospital Hip Fracture Cohort between January 2008 and March 2022. The cases were individuals who experienced subsequent fractures following an initial hip fracture. Each case was matched with up to 2 controls who did not develop subsequent fractures. Important clinical factors were compared across groups, including traditional fracture risk factors and potential risk factors (e.g., comorbidities, falls risk, physical impairment, calcium or vitamin D use, and anti-osteoporosis medications). Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of these clinical features as potential risk factors for subsequent fractures.

Results

A total of 96 individuals who suffered from subsequent fractures were matched with 176 controls. The median time between the initial hip fracture and the subsequent fracture was 2.1 years. The overall proportion of patients receiving anti-osteoporosis treatment after initial hip fracture was 25.7%. In the multivariable regression analysis, living in a care facility (OR = 3.78, 95%CI: 1.53–9.34), longer hospital stays (OR = 1.05, 95%CI: 1.00–1.11), and falls after discharge (OR = 7.58, 95%CI: 3.37–17.04) were associated with higher odds of subsequent fractures.

Conclusions

This study showed that living in a care facility, longer hospital stays, and falls after discharge may be independent risk factors for repeat fractures following an initial hip fracture. These findings could be used to identify and manage patients at high risk of subsequent fractures.

Introduction

Hip fractures, affecting an estimated 18% of women and 6% of men, are characterized by substantial morbidity and mortality, and pose a significant health challenge globally [1,2,3,4]. Hip fractures are projected to rise to 4.5 million by 2050 [5, 6]. The risk of further fractures following an initial hip fracture is considerably increased [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Subsequent fractures not only lead to worse clinical prognosis but also place a substantial financial burden on the healthcare system [11,12,13,14].

In recent years, there has been increasing awareness and emphasis on preventing subsequent fractures [15]. Clinical guidelines emphasize identifying modifiable risk factors for subsequent fractures [16,17,18]. While risk factors for initial hip fractures are relatively well-established, our understanding of the determinants for additional fractures remains less clear. Based on the clinical and biological knowledge of fractures, it is reasonable to assume that the risk factors linked to the initial fracture may also be risk factors for subsequent fractures [19, 20]. However, it is necessary to validate the factors within the specific population of hip fracture patients.

Our current knowledge of the risk factors of subsequent fractures is inadequate. A prior Danish population-based study has identified several risk factors for a subsequent hip fracture, including female gender, advanced age, excessive alcohol consumption, living alone, and history of fracture [21]. However, these findings have not been consistently replicated in studies from different settings [22,23,24]. Most of these previously identified risk factors are non-modifiable [21, 25,26,27], limiting their utility in the clinical management of hip fractures. More recent studies have expanded the investigation to include modifiable risks, such as comorbidities, exercise, weight management, and anti-osteoporosis medication usage [25, 28, 29, 34]. However, these studies typically focus on baseline variables and neglect post-fracture evaluations [30]. Many of these studies have limitations due to poorly defined subsequent fracture endpoints or incomplete assessment of risk factors, leading to uncertainties in their conclusions [30,31,32,33]. Thus, a thorough evaluation of important risk factors, measured during fracture and post-fracture, is needed to understand the risk factors comprehensive.

Although a prospective hip fracture cohort is ideally suited to identifying the risk factors for subsequent fractures, it necessitates the redefinition of potential risk factors and their prospective collection, a time-consuming and resource-intensive process [34, 35]. A nested case-control design enhances efficiency by utilizing pre-collected variables and allowing for the retrospective gathering of additional post-fracture variables of interest, thus offering preliminary evidence in the absence of prospective cohort studies [35].

To examine the risk factors associated with subsequent fractures, we conducted a nested case-control analysis using a large hip fracture cohort.

Materials and methods

This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines [36].

Data sources and study cohort

We used data from the Chinese PLA General Hospital Hip Fracture Cohort, a single-center study evaluating the prognosis of hip fracture patients. Patients in the cohort didn’t receive the fracture liaison service or multidisciplinary management. We included patients aged 50 years and above who underwent surgery for an initial hip fracture between January 2008 and March 2022. Patients were excluded if their fracture was not recent (admitted to the hospital more than three weeks after the hip fracture) or if they had missing values for sex and surgery-related data. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Chinese PLA General Hospital (No. S2023-059-01).

Case definition and control selection

We defined cases as individuals who sustained subsequent fractures at different sites following their initial hip fracture. All the subsequent fractures were identified by reviewing both inpatient and outpatient medical charts after their initial hip fractures, as well as conducting telephone reviews post-discharge.

These subsequent fractures encompassed contralateral hip fractures (femoral neck fractures, trochanteric fractures, and subtrochanteric fractures), vertebral fractures, humeral fractures (proximal humerus, shoulder, upper end of the humerus), forearm fractures (forearm, wrist, hand, distal radius), and fractures at other sites. If a patient experienced multiple fractures after initial hip fracture, only the first fracture was considered. We excluded patients with subsequent fractures caused by pathologic conditions, periprosthetic issues, or high-impact trauma.

We adopted a nested case-control study within the cohort to enhance the efficiency. For each case, up to 2 controls (those without subsequent fractures) were matched based on age at the time of initial fracture (within five years), gender, history of fracture, and follow-up time (equal to or exceeding that of the matched case patient) to increase the comparability between groups. Follow-up time was calculated as the duration from the initial hip fracture to the occurrence of subsequent fracture, or March 31, 2022.

Selection of potential risk factors

Based on current evidence and subject matter knowledge, we considered a wide range of risk factors that could influence subsequent fractures. The baseline predictors were the variables obtained before the discharge of the initial hip fracture. These variables included sociodemographic characteristics (age and sex), lifestyle habits (drinking and smoking), anthropometric measurements (including height, weight and body mass index), malnutrition, comorbid conditions (Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, coronary heart disease, arrhythmia, heart failure, myocardial infarction, valvular heart disease, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, encephalopathy sequelae, pneumonia, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure, anemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney injury, eye diseases (glaucoma, cataracts), rheumatic disease, and tumor), fracture type, surgery type (internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty), duration of surgery, anesthesia type, hematologic and biochemical tests, and in-hospital postoperative complications (pneumonia, respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, pulmonary embolism, arrhythmia, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke). Smoking/drinking status was defined as current or not current smoker/drinker [37]. Anemia was defined as hemoglobin less than 130 g/L for men and 120 g/L for women [38], and malnutrition was defined as albumin less than 35 g/L on discharge [39, 40]. Additionally, we calculated the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) [41, 42].

We also included post-baseline predictors as potential risk factors collected after hospital discharge via telephone calls. Follow-up occurred annually after the initial hip fracture. The post-baseline variables of interest included any falls in the following year, level of lower-limb function, extent of physical impairment, use of anti-osteoporosis medications, and calcium or vitamin D supplementation in the most recent follow-up. The lower-limb function impairment was assessed by enquiring whether patients required assistance in performing any of the following activities: walking across a room, getting out of a chair, walking on the level ground outside, and walking up or down stairs [19], the physical impairment was determined by evaluating the use of ambulatory aids, such as a cane or walker [19].

Statistical analyses

Continuous variables (such as time from admission to surgery, and length of hospital stay) were described as mean with standard deviation and analyzed using t-tests. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies with percentages and compared using the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. A conditional logistic regression model was used to identify independent predictors for subsequent fractures. We selected variables for the model by considering both clinical significance and statistical relevance. In terms of the statistical criteria, we adopted a significance threshold of P-value < 0.1, consistent with previous studies.

We conducted three sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our primary findings. First, we sought to determine if the risk factors for composite osteoporotic fractures also applied to hip fractures by restricting cases to those with subsequent hip fractures. Then we considered the impact of age by limiting analysis to patients who were 65 years or older at the time of initial fracture. Last, given the advancements in treatment philosophies, surgical techniques, and medical devices may change over time and ultimately altered the treatment pattern of hip fracture, we restricted patients admitted for their initial hip fracture from 2012 to 2022.

All statistical analyses were performed using R 4.3.0 software (https://cran.rproject.org). Statistical significance was defined as p-values < 0.05.

Results

We adopted a nested case-control study design by matching 96 patients who suffered from subsequent fractures with 176 individuals (matching ratio of 1:2) who had a similar age (± 5), gender, history of fracture, and follow-up time after the initial hip fracture but did not experience any subsequent fractures. Thus, this yielded a matched cohort of 272 patients. (Fig. 1 and Supplement Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart

Full size image

Baseline characteristics of the study cohorts

The cases had higher rates of staying in residential care (24.0% vs. controls 10.2%), eye disease (13.5% vs. controls 6.2%), experiencing falls within one year after discharge (38.5% vs. controls 9.7%), having lower-limb function impairment after discharge (49.0% vs. controls 34.1%), having physical impairment after discharge (56.2% vs. controls 36.9%), and having a longer hospital stays (cases 12.86 ± 7.84 vs. controls 11.12 ± 4.58). Additionally, the proportion of patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score > 3 was higher in the cases group (cases 63.5% vs. controls 60.2%). Only 70 patients (25.7%) in our study used anti-osteoporosis medications after the initial fracture (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the study population
Full size table

Among the 96 subsequent fracture cases, the hip was the most frequently affected site (n = 41, 42.7%). Other common fracture sites were at the vertebral (n = 26, 27.1%), forearm (n = 12, 12.5%), and humerus (n = 5, 5.2%) (Fig. 2A). The median time between the initial hip fractures and the subsequent fractures was 2.1 (range 0.1–12.7) years (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Characteristics of subsequent fractures. A. The site of subsequent fractures, B. The time course of subsequent fractures

Full size image

Risk factors of subsequent fractures

In patients with initial hip fractures, the multivariable logistic regression analysis identified several independent risk factors for subsequent fractures including staying in residential care (OR = 3.78; 95% CI, 1.53–9.34), having a longer hospital stay (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11) and experiencing falls (OR = 7.58; 95% CI, 3.37–17.04) (Table 2).

Table 2 Conditional logistic regression analysis of risk factors on subsequent fracture
Full size table

Sensitivity analyses

We conducted a separate analysis that only included controls and subsequent hip fracture cases to assess the significance of risk factors for severe cases. This sensitivity analysis reaffirmed that residence in a care facility (OR = 3.53; 95% CI, 1.02–12.20), and experiencing falls within a year (OR = 6.49; 95% CI, 2.22–18.94) after initial fracture were significantly associated with subsequent fractures (Table 3).

Table 3 Sensitive analysis of the risk factors for subsequent fracture
Full size table

To account for the impact of age and the long duration of our study, we further analyzed risk factors in specific subgroups: patients aged ≥ 65 years, and patients restricted to the recent ten years (from 2012 to 2022). Results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis, that is, residence in a care facility, longer hospital stays and experiencing falls within a year after discharge were significantly associated with increased odds of subsequent fractures (Table 3).

Discussion

Main findings

This study identified several risk factors associated with subsequent fractures after the initial hip fracture including staying in residential care, longer hospital stays, and accidental falls following the initial hip fracture.

Comparison with existing literature

Risk factors for subsequent fractures in individuals who have experienced an initial fracture carry significant clinical implications. However, high-quality evidence remains insufficient. The study of risk factors for subsequent fractures necessitates the implementation of cohort designs that include a population of individuals with prior fractures. This can be accomplished through prospective cohort designs, national claim databases, or electronic medical records. However, prospective cohort studies require long-term follow-up. Several large fracture registries are yet to publish results on the risk factors associated with subsequent fractures [7, 43,44,45]. National registries and electronic medical records are limited by their ability to define the occurrence of subsequent fractures accurately [21, 22]. Although studies based on numerous databases report on the trend of subsequent fractures, they fall short of examining the risk factors associated with these sequential fractures. Without evidence from cohort studies investigating subsequent fractures, we adopted a nested case-control design to screen for potential risk factors contributing to subsequent fractures.

Accidental falls are strongly associated with fractures and increase the risk of subsequent fractures by over 20 times (OR, 6.67–22.52) [29, 46]. Our study observed a similar association between accidental falls and subsequent fractures, with an OR of 7.58 (95% CI, 3.37–17.04). This association was consistent among sensitivity analyses, including restricted the study population to those experienced subsequent hip fractures (OR = 6.49; 95% CI, 2.22–18.94), to those who were 65 years or older (OR = 8.57; 95% CI, 3.47–21.21), and to patients who were admitted for their initial hip fracture from 2012 to 2022 (OR = 6.94; 95% CI, 2.98–16.15). Given that 95% of hip fractures result from accidental falls [47,48,49,50]. There is an urgent need to incorporate fall prevention measures in the management of hip fracture patients to reduce the occurrence of subsequent fractures.

Individuals residing in nursing homes are reported to have a significantly higher risk of hip fractures compared to those living in the community [51, 52]. Consistent with these findings, our study revealed that patients living in nursing homes were 3.78 times more likely to experience subsequent fractures than community-based individuals. Patients residing in these nursing care institutions were older, female, and had impaired ambulation [53], all of which contribute to an increased risk of falls and potentially result in worse functional outcomes [54]. As China continues to witness an increase in the proportion of the aging population, there will be a growing number of elderly individuals residing in nursing homes. It is imperative to prioritize and enhance health management strategies for this specific and vulnerable population.

We found an increased risk of subsequent fractures among patients aged 65 years or older with eye disease. An extensive nationwide population-based study involving 87,415 hip fracture patients found that patients with eye disease were three times more likely to suffer from a recurrent hip fracture [21]. Similarly, a previous meta-analysis assessed eye disease to be linked to a greater incidence of recurrent hip fracture (OR 2.09; 95% CI, 1.06–4.12) [55], a plausible observation since eye disease is a risk factor for accidental falls [47]. Therefore, healthcare providers should actively screen and refer hip fracture patients with eye disease for specialized eye care and regular monitoring if a multidisciplinary team is not available.

Individuals with better functional status are more likely to experience subsequent fractures [33, 56]. This observation that may be attributed to independent mobility among these patients, which can lead to higher levels of physical activity and consequently increase the risk of falls. Interestingly, our study provides contrasting results whereby patients with limited mobility had an increased risk of subsequent hip fractures (OR = 3.71; 95% CI, 1.19–11.52). The findings of our study can be rationalized from the perspective that poor physical function may often lead to inactivity and immobility that may cause muscle atrophy [57] and ultimately increase the risk of falls. It is important to note that our study provides conservative estimates since, in our analysis, we excluded patients with severely compromised functional status and those who may have become bedridden or died following the initial hip fracture [3].

Prophylactic treatment against osteoporosis is recommended to reduce the likelihood of subsequent fractures, particularly in high-risk populations [28]. Both guidelines and trials emphasize the use of calcium and vitamin D in conjunction with anti-osteoporosis medications [18, 58]. However, the multivariable regression analysis showed no statistically significant difference in anti-osteoporosis medications, vitamin D or calcium supplements between the two groups. This could possibly be explained by the small sample size and low rate of anti-osteoporosis medications use, which limited the power of the study. We also found that the intake of these medications among patients with initial hip fractures is low, accounting for only 25.7% in our study, emphasizing a significant treatment gap for patients suffering from hip fractures. A similar pattern emerged from other studies including a prospective study involving ten countries, which showed less than 20% of women with new fractures received anti-osteoporosis medications within one year [59]. In yet another study involving a review of healthcare data from 15 countries, the proportion of use of osteoporosis treatment varies from 12.9 to 50.3% [3]. The reasons for the phenomenon could be an underestimation of osteoporosis severity by both healthcare providers and patients, as well as concerns regarding the efficacy and potential side effects of therapeutic medications [60]. Therefore, it is necessary to advocate for enhanced patient education and improved communication between healthcare providers and patients to ensure better initiation of anti-osteoporosis treatment.

Our sensitivity analyses supported the main findings, indicating robust results. Owing to concerns about the poor baseline health status and prognosis of relatively severe patients (subsequent hip fracture patients and older patients), we hypothesize that the risk factors of subsequent fractures in these patients might differ from the general hip fracture patients. However, the sensitivity analysis results did not support our hypothesis. Considering the potential influence of admission time, we postulated patients’ admission time could have altered the factors influencing subsequent fractures. Nevertheless, the research outcomes remained incongruent with our assumptions. These sensitivity analyses suggest the identified risk factors for subsequent fractures in this study are likely to be widely applicable.

Strengthens and limitations

This study’s major strength is its design, whereby we comprehensively evaluated a series of potential risk factors, including those present during the hospitalization and post-discharge periods. While yielding vital insights, we acknowledge some limitations to our study. First, as a single-center study, the generalizability of the results to another population may be limited. Second, follow-up data after hospital discharge were obtained via telephone calls, which may suffer from recall bias. Third, the occurrence of subsequent fractures may be underestimated since most vertebral fractures are asymptomatic. Fourth, we did not include bone mineral density as a variable in our analysis due to the low rate of bone mineral density testing, only 17.6% of the patients had bone mineral density data available. Future prospective studies with bone mineral density data are needed to validate these findings. Fifth, we could not consider the dosage, duration of treatment, and compliance in using anti-osteoporosis medications due to the underuse of anti-osteoporosis medications. Last, we did not have detailed information on some potential risk factors, such as smoking, drinking, and baseline functional status, preventing us from assessing their association with subsequent fractures.

Further research

Due to the limited number of patients and the retrospective nature of the study, caution should be applied when interpreting the results of the current study. Our preliminary findings invite confirmatory prospective studies involving larger sample sizes, multicenter design, and longer follow-up periods. Additionally, further research is required to examine the role of bone mineral density, dose, duration, and compliance to prophylactic osteoporosis treatment in the developing subsequent fractures.

Clinical implication

Considering the consequences of subsequent fractures, we strongly recommend early risk evaluation and appropriate interventions to minimize the associated risks. Physicians need to acknowledge the treatment gap (low rate of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy) in osteoporosis management and strategies must be developed and implemented to enhance the timely initiation of anti-osteoporosis medications following hip fractures. The findings of our study hold significant clinical implications for the early identification and appropriate interventions among high-risk patients.

Conclusion

Our study provides evidence that residing in a nursing care facility, longer hospital stays, and accidental falls are associated with increased odds of subsequent fractures. We identified an alarming gap in anti-osteoporosis treatment among hip fracture patients and recommended that these findings be used to identify and manage patients at high risk of subsequent fractures.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

Age-adjusted CCI:

The age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index

VitD:

Vitamin D

AOM:

Anti-osteoporosis medications

References

  1. Veronese N, Maggi S. Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture. Injury. 2018;49:1458–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Williamson S, Landeiro F, McConnell T, Fulford-Smith L, Javaid MK, Judge A, et al. Costs of fragility hip fractures globally: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:2791–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sing C-W, Lin T-C, Bartholomew S, Bennett JSB, Beyene C. Global epidemiology of hip fractures: secular trends in incidence rate, post-fracture treatment, and all-cause mortality. J Bone Min Res. 2023;38(8):1064–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Maffulli N, Aicale R. Proximal femoral fractures in the Elderly: a few things to know, and some to forget. Med (Kaunas). 2022;58(10):1314.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gargano G, Poeta N, Oliva F, Migliorini F, Maffulli N. Zimmer Natural Nail and ELOS nails in pertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):509.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Marsillo E, Pintore A, Asparago G, et al. Cephalomedullary nailing for reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures 31A3 (AO/OTA). Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2022;14(6):38560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Roux C, Thomas T, Paccou J, Bizouard G, Crochard A, Toth E, et al. Refracture and mortality following hospitalization for severe osteoporotic fractures: the Fractos Study. JBMR Plus. 2021;5:e10507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sujic R, Beaton DE, Mamdani M, Cadarette SM, Luo J, Jaglal S, et al. Five-year refracture rates of a province-wide fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:1671–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Balasubramanian A, Zhang J, Chen L, Wenkert D, Daigle SG, Grauer A, et al. Risk of subsequent fracture after prior fracture among older women. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:79–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wong RMY, Wong PY, Liu C, Wong HW, Chung YL, Chow SKH, et al. The imminent risk of a fracture-existing worldwide data: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33(12):2453–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Colón-Emeric C, Kuchibhatla M, Pieper C, Hawkes W, Fredman L, Magaziner J, et al. The contribution of hip fracture to risk of subsequent fractures: data from two longitudinal studies. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:879–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Song X, Shi N, Badamgarav E, Kallich J, Varker H, Lenhart G, et al. Cost burden of second fracture in the US health system. Bone. 2011;48:828–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu J, Gong T, Xu X, Fox KM, Oates M, Gandra SR. Heavy clinical and economic burden of osteoporotic fracture among elderly female Medicare beneficiaries. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:413–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leslie WD, Yan L, Lix LM, Morin SN. Time dependency in early major osteoporotic and hip re-fractures in women and men aged 50 years and older: a population-based observational study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33:39–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johansson H, Siggeirsdóttir K, Harvey NC, Odén A, Gudnason V, McCloskey E, et al. Imminent risk of fracture after fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:775–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bogoch E, Marcano-Fernández FA, Schemitsch EH, Zhou Q, Bzovsky S, Bhandari M, et al. High rates of imminent subsequent fracture after femoral Neck fracture in the Elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(22):1984–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Meehan AJ, Maher AB, Brent L, Copanitsanou P, Cross J, Kimber C, et al. The international collaboration of orthopaedic nursing (ICON): best practice nursing care standards for older adults with fragility hip fracture. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2019;32:3–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lems WF, Dreinhöfer KE, Bischoff-Ferrari H, Blauth M, Czerwinski E, da Silva J, et al. EULAR/EFORT recommendations for management of patients older than 50 years with a fragility fracture and prevention of subsequent fractures. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:802–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grisso JA, Kelsey JL, Strom BL, O’Brien LA, Maislin G, LaPann K, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in black women. The Northeast hip fracture Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1555–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:385–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ryg J, Rejnmark L, Overgaard S, Brixen K, Vestergaard P. Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977–2001. J Bone Min Res. 2009;24:1299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shen S-H, Huang K-C, Tsai Y-H, Yang T-Y, Lee MS, Ueng SWN, et al. Risk analysis for second hip fracture in patients after hip fracture surgery: a nationwide population-based study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15:725–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Llopis-Cardona F, Armero C, Hurtado I, García-Sempere A, Peiró S, Rodríguez-Bernal CL, et al. Incidence of subsequent hip fracture and mortality in Elderly patients: a Multistate Population-based Cohort Study in Eastern Spain. J Bone Min Res. 2022;37:1200–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sheikh HQ, Hossain FS, Khan S, Usman M, Kapoor H, Aqil A. Short-term risk factors for a second hip fracture in a UK population. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29:1055–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Park S-M, Go SJ, Han H, Park JW, Lee Y-K, Kim H-J, et al. Risk factors for subsequent vertebral fractures following a previous hip fracture. J Bone Min Metab. 2021;39:193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gibson-Smith D, Klop C, Elders PJM, Welsing PMJ, van Schoor N, Leufkens HGM, et al. The risk of major and any (non-hip) fragility fracture after hip fracture in the United Kingdom: 2000–2010. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:2555–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vochteloo AJ, van der Borger BL, Röling MA, van Leeuwen DH, van den Berg P, Niggebrugge AHP, et al. Contralateral hip fractures and other osteoporosis-related fractures in hip fracture patients: incidence and risk factors. An observational cohort study of 1,229 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(8):1191–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Keshishian A, Boytsov N, Burge R, Krohn K, Lombard L, Zhang X, et al. Examining the treatment gap and risk of subsequent fractures among females with a fragility fracture in the US Medicare population. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:2485–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim S-M, Moon Y-W, Lim S-J, Yoon B-K, Min Y-K, Lee D-Y, et al. Prediction of survival, second fracture, and functional recovery following the first hip fracture surgery in elderly patients. Bone. 2012;50:1343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chapurlat RD, Bauer DC, Nevitt M, Stone K, Cummings SR. Incidence and risk factors for a second hip fracture in elderly women. The study of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:130–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Makar GS, Rocha DB, Nester J, Torino D, Udoeyo IF, Maniar HH, et al. An analysis of cost and complications for patients sustaining a second, contralateral hip fracture within 1 year. Injury. 2023;S0020–1383(23):00357–1.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rougereau G, Naline C, Boisrenoult P, Langlais T, Pujol N. Proximal femoral fracture and female gender are risk factors for recurrent fracture: Cohort study of 292 patients over 75 years-old with iterative osteoporotic fractures. Injury. 2023. S0020-1383(23)00187-0.

  33. Berry SD, Samelson EJ, Ngo L, Bordes M, Broe KE, Kiel DP. Subsequent fracture in nursing home residents with a hip fracture: a competing risks approach. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:1887–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang Y, Zheng J, Du Z, Li Y, Cai Y. Accurate prediction of stroke for hypertensive patients based on Medical Big Data and Machine Learning algorithms: Retrospective Study. JMIR Med Inf. 2021;9:e30277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang JJ, Attia J. Study designs in epidemiology and levels of evidence. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:367–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang L, Xie J, Hu Y, Tian Y. Air pollution and risk of chronic obstructed pulmonary disease: the modifying effect of genetic susceptibility and lifestyle. EBioMedicine. 2022;79:103994.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Richards T, Baikady RR, Clevenger B, Butcher A, Abeysiri S, Chau M, et al. Preoperative intravenous iron to treat anaemia before major abdominal surgery (PREVENTT): a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;396:1353–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bohl DD, Shen MR, Hannon CP, Fillingham YA, Darrith B, Della Valle CJ. Serum albumin predicts survival and postoperative course following surgery for geriatric hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:2110–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuzuya M, Izawa S, Enoki H, Okada K, Iguchi A. Is serum albumin a good marker for malnutrition in the physically impaired elderly? Clin Nutr. 2007;26:84–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Omsland TK, Emaus N, Tell GS, Ahmed LA, Center JR, Nguyen ND, et al. Ten-year risk of second hip fracture. A NOREPOS study. Bone. 2013;52:493–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Meyer AC, Ek S, Drefahl S, Ahlbom A, Hedström M, Modig K. Trends in Hip fracture incidence, recurrence, and Survival by Education and Comorbidity: A Swedish Register-based study. Epidemiology. 2021;32:425–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Hansen L, Petersen KD, Eriksen SA, Langdahl BL, Eiken PA, Brixen K, et al. Subsequent fracture rates in a nationwide population-based cohort study with a 10-year perspective. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:513–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bonafede M, Shi N, Barron R, Li X, Crittenden DB, Chandler D. Predicting imminent risk for fracture in patients aged 50 or older with osteoporosis using US claims data. Arch Osteoporos. 2016;11:26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Yamanashi A, Yamazaki K, Kanamori M, Mochizuki K, Okamoto S, Koide Y, et al. Assessment of risk factors for second hip fractures in Japanese elderly. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:1239–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Vieira ER, Palmer RC, Chaves PHM. Prevention of falls in older people living in the community. BMJ. 2016;353:i1419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wong RMY, Cheung WH, Chow SKH, Ng RWK, Li W, Hsu AYC, et al. Recommendations on the post-acute management of the osteoporotic fracture - patients with very-high re-fracture risk. J Orthop Translat. 2022;37:94–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Quaranta M, Miranda L, Oliva F, Migliorini F, Pezzuti G, Maffulli N. Haemoglobin and transfusions in elderly patients with hip fractures: the effect of a dedicated orthogeriatrician. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):387.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Butler M, Norton R, Lee-Joe T, Cheng A, Campbell AJ. The risks of hip fracture in older people from private homes and institutions. Age Ageing. 1996;25:381–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sugarman JR, Connell FA, Hansen A, Helgerson SD, Jessup MC, Lee H. Hip fracture incidence in nursing home residents and community-dwelling older people, Washington State, 1993–1995. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1638–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nakamura K, Takahashi S, Oyama M, Nashimoto M, Saito T, Tsuchiya Y, et al. Incidence and risk factors associated with hip fracture in institutionalised elderly people in Japan. Age Ageing. 2009;38:478–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Beaupre LA, Cinats JG, Jones CA, Scharfenberger AV, William C, Johnston D, Senthilselvan A, et al. Does functional recovery in elderly hip fracture patients differ between patients admitted from long-term care and the community? J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:1127–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhu Y, Chen W, Sun T, Zhang Q, Cheng J, Zhang Y. Meta-analysis of risk factors for the second hip fracture (SHF) in elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014;59:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Berry SD, Samelson EJ, Hannan MT, McLean RR, Lu M, Cupples LA, et al. Second hip fracture in older men and women: the Framingham Study. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1971–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chen YP, Kuo YJ, Hung SW, Wen TW, Chien PC, Chiang MH, et al. Loss of skeletal muscle mass can be predicted by Sarcopenia and reflects poor functional recovery at one year after surgery for geriatric hip fractures. Injury. 2021;52(11):3446–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Conley RB, Adib G, Adler RA, Åkesson KE, Alexander IM, Amenta KC, et al. Secondary fracture Prevention: Consensus Clinical recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition. J Bone Min Res. 2020;35(1):36–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Greenspan SL, Wyman A, Hooven FH, Adami S, Gehlbach S, Anderson FA, et al. Predictors of treatment with osteoporosis medications after recent fragility fractures in a multinational cohort of postmenopausal women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:455–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, McLellan AR, Stenmark J, Pierroz DD, et al. Capture the fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(8):2135–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Xiang Cui and Xisheng Lin for their assistance with the data collection, Yan Luo, Ming Li, Pengbin Yin, and Jia Li for their methodological and statistical support, Licheng Zhang and Peifu Tang for their efforts in crafting and revising the manuscript, and Sizheng Steven Zhao for the review and edit of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Excellent Young Scholars Training Program by the Chinese PLA General Hospital (2020-YQPY-001), Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by Beijing Association for Science and Technology (BYESS2022021), National Natural Science Foundation of China (72204262), and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC2504300).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mi Song and Yilin Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical School of Chinese PLA, No. 28, Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100853, People’s Republic of China

    Mi Song, Yilin Wang & Yu Jiang

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28, Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100853, People’s Republic of China

    Mi Song, Yilin Wang, Yu Jiang & Houchen Lyu

  3. Military Health Service Training Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28, Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100853, People’s Republic of China

    Hongying Pi

  4. National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation, No. 28, Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100853, People’s Republic of China

    Houchen Lyu

  5. Department of nursing, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28, Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100853, People’s Republic of China

    Mi Song & Yuan Gao

Authors
  1. Mi Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yilin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hongying Pi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Houchen Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuan Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MS, YG, HP, HL. Data curation: MS, YW, YJ. Validation: MS, HP, HL, YG. Formal analysis: MS, YW, YJ. Funding acquisition: HL, YG. Project administration: MS, HP, HL, YG. Methodology: MS, YW, HL. Software: MS, YW. Writing – original draft: MS, YW, YJ. Writing – review & editing: MS, HL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hongying Pi, Houchen Lyu or Yuan Gao.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

We have obtained consent for publication from all participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approvaland informed consent

This study was performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by The Ethics Committee of Chinese PLA General Hospital (No. S2023-059-01) and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, M., Wang, Y., Jiang, Y. et al. Risk factors for subsequent fractures in hip fracture patients: a nested case-control study. J Orthop Surg Res 19, 348 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04833-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04833-6

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X