Cargando…

The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study

INTRODUCTION: Due to the aging population the incidence of Low Energy Fractures (LEF) increases. LEF have high mortality and morbidity rates and often cause elderly to lose independence. Patient-reported outcomes, such as Quality of Life (QoL) and patient satisfaction (PS) are needed to evaluate tre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Vet, Puck C. R., Kusen, Jip Q., Rohner-Spengler, Manuela, Link, Bjoern-Christian, Verleisdonk, Egbert-Jan M. M., Knobe, Matthias, Henzen, Christoph, Schmid, Lukas, Babst, Reto, Beeres, Frank J. P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8642119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34868722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21514593211046407
_version_ 1784609622549594112
author van der Vet, Puck C. R.
Kusen, Jip Q.
Rohner-Spengler, Manuela
Link, Bjoern-Christian
Verleisdonk, Egbert-Jan M. M.
Knobe, Matthias
Henzen, Christoph
Schmid, Lukas
Babst, Reto
Beeres, Frank J. P.
author_facet van der Vet, Puck C. R.
Kusen, Jip Q.
Rohner-Spengler, Manuela
Link, Bjoern-Christian
Verleisdonk, Egbert-Jan M. M.
Knobe, Matthias
Henzen, Christoph
Schmid, Lukas
Babst, Reto
Beeres, Frank J. P.
author_sort van der Vet, Puck C. R.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Due to the aging population the incidence of Low Energy Fractures (LEF) increases. LEF have high mortality and morbidity rates and often cause elderly to lose independence. Patient-reported outcomes, such as Quality of Life (QoL) and patient satisfaction (PS) are needed to evaluate treatment, estimate cost-benefit analyses, and to improve clinical decision-making and patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to evaluate QoL and PS in patients with LEF, and to compare QoL scores to the community dwelling population. Second, we observed the amount and type of physiotherapy (PT) sessions the patients conducted. METHODS: A single-center cohort study was conducted in Switzerland. Patients between 50 and 85 years, who were treated in the hospital for LEF, were followed 1 year after initial fracture. Data on QoL were obtained through the Euroqol-5-Dimension questionnaire-3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) and the EQ VAS (visual analog scale). PS was measured by a VAS on satisfaction with treatment outcome. Data on PT sessions, mobility and use of analgesics were collected by telephone interviews and written surveys. Results were compared between the different fracture locations and subgroup analyses were performed for age categories. RESULTS: 411 patients were included for analysis. The median scores of the EQ-5D-3L index—VAS and PS were 0.90 (0.75–1.0), 90 (71.3–95) and 100 (90–100). Significant differences in all scores were found between fracture location (P < .05), with hip fracture patients and patients with a malleolar fracture scoring lowest in all measures. QoL index in hip fracture patients was 0.76 (0.70–1.00), QoL VAS 80 (70–90), and PS 95 (80–100). Median amount of PT sessions in all patients was 18 (9–27) and a significant difference was found between fracture locations. Patients with a fracture of the humerus received the highest amount of PT sessions 27 (18–36), hip fracture patients had a median of 18 (9–27) sessions. CONCLUSION: At follow-up, QoL throughout all patients with a LEF was comparable to a normal population. Remarkably, though hip fracture patients seem to suffer from a clinically relevant loss of QoL, they received fewer PT sessions and performed fewer long-lasting home training than patients with a humerus fracture. Intensive, progressive rehabilitation with a high frequency of supervised training is recommended after hip fracture. The low frequency of PT sessions found in this study is unsatisfying. In hip fracture patients and in patients with a malleolar fracture, especially when aged over 75 years, more efforts are required to improve rehabilitation and subsequently QoL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8642119
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86421192021-12-04 The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study van der Vet, Puck C. R. Kusen, Jip Q. Rohner-Spengler, Manuela Link, Bjoern-Christian Verleisdonk, Egbert-Jan M. M. Knobe, Matthias Henzen, Christoph Schmid, Lukas Babst, Reto Beeres, Frank J. P. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Medical Student Corner INTRODUCTION: Due to the aging population the incidence of Low Energy Fractures (LEF) increases. LEF have high mortality and morbidity rates and often cause elderly to lose independence. Patient-reported outcomes, such as Quality of Life (QoL) and patient satisfaction (PS) are needed to evaluate treatment, estimate cost-benefit analyses, and to improve clinical decision-making and patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to evaluate QoL and PS in patients with LEF, and to compare QoL scores to the community dwelling population. Second, we observed the amount and type of physiotherapy (PT) sessions the patients conducted. METHODS: A single-center cohort study was conducted in Switzerland. Patients between 50 and 85 years, who were treated in the hospital for LEF, were followed 1 year after initial fracture. Data on QoL were obtained through the Euroqol-5-Dimension questionnaire-3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) and the EQ VAS (visual analog scale). PS was measured by a VAS on satisfaction with treatment outcome. Data on PT sessions, mobility and use of analgesics were collected by telephone interviews and written surveys. Results were compared between the different fracture locations and subgroup analyses were performed for age categories. RESULTS: 411 patients were included for analysis. The median scores of the EQ-5D-3L index—VAS and PS were 0.90 (0.75–1.0), 90 (71.3–95) and 100 (90–100). Significant differences in all scores were found between fracture location (P < .05), with hip fracture patients and patients with a malleolar fracture scoring lowest in all measures. QoL index in hip fracture patients was 0.76 (0.70–1.00), QoL VAS 80 (70–90), and PS 95 (80–100). Median amount of PT sessions in all patients was 18 (9–27) and a significant difference was found between fracture locations. Patients with a fracture of the humerus received the highest amount of PT sessions 27 (18–36), hip fracture patients had a median of 18 (9–27) sessions. CONCLUSION: At follow-up, QoL throughout all patients with a LEF was comparable to a normal population. Remarkably, though hip fracture patients seem to suffer from a clinically relevant loss of QoL, they received fewer PT sessions and performed fewer long-lasting home training than patients with a humerus fracture. Intensive, progressive rehabilitation with a high frequency of supervised training is recommended after hip fracture. The low frequency of PT sessions found in this study is unsatisfying. In hip fracture patients and in patients with a malleolar fracture, especially when aged over 75 years, more efforts are required to improve rehabilitation and subsequently QoL. SAGE Publications 2021-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8642119/ /pubmed/34868722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21514593211046407 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Medical Student Corner
van der Vet, Puck C. R.
Kusen, Jip Q.
Rohner-Spengler, Manuela
Link, Bjoern-Christian
Verleisdonk, Egbert-Jan M. M.
Knobe, Matthias
Henzen, Christoph
Schmid, Lukas
Babst, Reto
Beeres, Frank J. P.
The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study
title The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study
title_full The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study
title_fullStr The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study
title_full_unstemmed The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study
title_short The Quality of Life, Patient Satisfaction and Rehabilitation in Patients With a Low Energy Fracture—Part III of an Observational Study
title_sort quality of life, patient satisfaction and rehabilitation in patients with a low energy fracture—part iii of an observational study
topic Medical Student Corner
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8642119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34868722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21514593211046407
work_keys_str_mv AT vandervetpuckcr thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT kusenjipq thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT rohnerspenglermanuela thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT linkbjoernchristian thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT verleisdonkegbertjanmm thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT knobematthias thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT henzenchristoph thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT schmidlukas thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT babstreto thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT beeresfrankjp thequalityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT vandervetpuckcr qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT kusenjipq qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT rohnerspenglermanuela qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT linkbjoernchristian qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT verleisdonkegbertjanmm qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT knobematthias qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT henzenchristoph qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT schmidlukas qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT babstreto qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy
AT beeresfrankjp qualityoflifepatientsatisfactionandrehabilitationinpatientswithalowenergyfracturepartiiiofanobservationalstudy