Impacts of Hip Fracture Types on Recovery Outcomes and Quality of Life Among Older Adults With Fragility Hip Fracture in 6-Month Postoperative Period
Author(s)
Rapeepat Jitmal, B.Sc. (Physical Therapy), Mantana Vongsirinavarat, Ph.D. (Physical Therapy).
Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
OBJECTIVES: Hip fracture is a significant health issue in aging society. The different anatomical location of hip fractures might impact the recovery outcomes and quality of life due to inversely damaged tissues. However, the comparison of postoperative consequences has not been established regarding types of fracture. Therefore, the objective was to investigate the recovery outcomes and quality of life of individuals with fragility hip fractures 6 months after surgery.
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional study. The study protocol was approved by the Mahidol University Central Institutional Review Board (COA No. MU-CIRB 2024/103.2904). Participants who were aged more than 60 years and diagnosed with fragility hip fracture were included. They were assessed recovery outcomes by time up and go test (TUG), 5-times sit to stand test (STS), gait speed test (GS), falls efficacy scale-international (FES-I), and Bartel index score (BI) within 6 months after discharge. Also, the EQ-5D-5L was evaluated for quality of life. The data were compared based on fracture types.
RESULTS: 30 participants were enrolled (13 femoral neck fracture (FNF) and 17 intertrochanteric fracture (IF)). There were significant differences in TUG (p=0.024), STS (p=0.038), GS (p=0.01) between FNF and IF. Additionally, FES was significantly higher in the IF group (p=0.009). The FNF was significantly greater in BI (p=0.002) and EQ-5D-5L (p=0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with femoral neck fracture demonstrated higher recovery outcomes and quality of life. However, the hip fracture rehabilitation should not be homogenously prescribed rather it should be tailored to the types of fracture. Moreover, the comparison recovery outcomes of hip fractures rehabilitation in further research should be separately considered according to types of fracture.
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional study. The study protocol was approved by the Mahidol University Central Institutional Review Board (COA No. MU-CIRB 2024/103.2904). Participants who were aged more than 60 years and diagnosed with fragility hip fracture were included. They were assessed recovery outcomes by time up and go test (TUG), 5-times sit to stand test (STS), gait speed test (GS), falls efficacy scale-international (FES-I), and Bartel index score (BI) within 6 months after discharge. Also, the EQ-5D-5L was evaluated for quality of life. The data were compared based on fracture types.
RESULTS: 30 participants were enrolled (13 femoral neck fracture (FNF) and 17 intertrochanteric fracture (IF)). There were significant differences in TUG (p=0.024), STS (p=0.038), GS (p=0.01) between FNF and IF. Additionally, FES was significantly higher in the IF group (p=0.009). The FNF was significantly greater in BI (p=0.002) and EQ-5D-5L (p=0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with femoral neck fracture demonstrated higher recovery outcomes and quality of life. However, the hip fracture rehabilitation should not be homogenously prescribed rather it should be tailored to the types of fracture. Moreover, the comparison recovery outcomes of hip fractures rehabilitation in further research should be separately considered according to types of fracture.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-09, ISPOR Real-World Evidence Summit 2025, Tokyo, Japan
Value in Health Regional, Volume 49S (September 2025)
Code
RWD210
Topic Subcategory
Distributed Data & Research Networks
Disease
SDC: Geriatrics