Health Care for Inpatients with a Proximal Humeral Fracture - an Analysis of Health Insurance Data

Abstract

Background

The proximal humeral fracture is one of the most common fractures in the elderly. While epidemiological factors have been well studied, the influence of a proximal humeral fracture on morbidity, mortality and associated costs has not yet been adequately analysed.

Method

On a basis of 4.1 million insurance holders of the German public health insurance (GKV), patients with (study population, SP) and without (comparison group, VG) a proximal humeral fracture (pHF) were compared with regard to comorbidity, rehospitalisation, mortality, drug and aid needs as well as number of physician contacts. Study period was between 2012 and 2016.

Results

6068 patients of the SP met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (age 69.4 ± 14.3 years; male : female = 28.2% : 71.8%). 4781 patients (78.8%) received surgical, 1287 patients (21.2%) conservative treatment of the pHF. Rehospitalisations and visits to the general practitioner occurred more frequently in the SP vs. VG (p < 0.01). Contacts with specialists after pHF varied according to specialty, as did newly occurring diseases. Typical specialities for preventive examinations were significantly less common (gynaecology p < 0.01, pathology p < 0.01, dermatology p < 0.01). According to pHF, the costs of SP for drugs (2490.76 ± 1395.51 € vs. 2167.86 ± 1314.43 €; p = 0.04), medical therapies (867.01 ± 238.67 € vs. 393.26 ± 217.55 €; p < 0.01) and aids (821.02 ± 415.73 € vs. 513.52 ± 368.76 €; p < 0.01) were significantly above the VG. The two-year survival after pHF is lower in the SP than in the VG (p < 0.01).

Discussion

The results show increased morbidity and mortality as well as medical costs after a proximal humeral fracture. Preventive examinations and treatments are rarer. In the future, care concepts for patients with proximal humeral fractures should not only be optimised with regard to functional scores and reduced complication rates, but also with regard to quality of life and preservation of general health.

Keywords

proximal humeral fracture - comorbidity - probability of survival - cost - routine data

Publication History

Received: 17 May 2021

Accepted after revision: 05 December 2021

Article published online:
02 March 2022

• Literatur

• 1 Kannus P, Niemi S, Sievänen H. et al. Stabilized Incidence in Proximal Humeral Fractures of Elderly Women: Nationwide Statistics From Finland in 1970–2015. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2017; 72: 1390-1393 DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glx073. (PMID: 28475669)
• 2 Karl JW, Olson PR, Rosenwasser MP. The Epidemiology of Upper Extremity Fractures in the United States, 2009. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29: e242-e244 DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000312. (PMID: 25714441)
• 3 Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 2001; 72: 365-371 DOI: 10.1080/000164701753542023. (PMID: 11580125)
• 4 Beks RB, Ochen Y, Frima H. et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 1526-1534 DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.009. (PMID: 29735376)
• 5 Lee SH, Dargent-Molina P, Bréart G. Risk factors for fractures of the proximal humerus: results from the EPIDOS prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 2002; 17: 817-825 DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.5.817. (PMID: 12009012)
• 6 Lopiz Y, Garcia-Coiradas J, Garcia-Fernandez C. et al. Proximal humerus nailing: a randomized clinical trial between curvilinear and straight nails. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 369-376 DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.023. (PMID: 24291047)
• 7 Handoll HHG, Ollivere BJ, Rollins KE. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (12) CD000434 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub3.
• 8 Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S. et al. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 313: 1037-1047 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.1629. (PMID: 25756440)
• 9 Sebastiá-Forcada E, Cebrián-Gómez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A. et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 1419-1426 DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.035. (PMID: 25086490)
• 10 Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P. et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 1320-1328 DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00006. (PMID: 19487508)
• 11 Ockert B, Pedersen V, Geyer L. et al. Position of polyaxial versus monoaxial screws in locked plating for proximal humeral fractures: analysis of a prospective randomized study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 24: 747-752 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-013-1360-5. (PMID: 24253956)
• 12 Menendez ME, Ring D. A Comparison of the Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Measures to Predict Inpatient Mortality After Proximal Humerus Fracture. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29: 488-493 DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000380. (PMID: 26165266)
• 13 Yi BC, Gowd AK, Agarwalla A. et al. Efficacy of the modified Frailty Index and the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index in predicting complications in patients undergoing operative management of proximal humerus fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30: 658-667 DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.06.014. (PMID: 32650081)
• 14 Arbeitsgruppe Erhebung und Nutzung von Sekundärdaten (AGENS), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sozialmedizin und Prävention (DGSMP), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Epidemiologie (DGEpi). Gute Praxis Sekundärdatenanalyse (GPS). Leitlinien und Empfehlungen. Accessed April 19, 2021 at: https://www.dgms.de/assets/pdf/GPS3Fassung2012.pdf
• 15 GPS – Gute Praxis Sekundärdatenanalyse: Revision nach grundlegender Überarbeitung. Gesundheitswesen [Anonym]. 2008; 70: 54-60 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1022529.
• 16 Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55 DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
• 17 Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR. et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36: 8-27 DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004. (PMID: 9431328)
• 18 Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med 2014; 33: 1057-1069 DOI: 10.1002/sim.6004. (PMID: 24123228)
• 19 Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3083-3107 DOI: 10.1002/sim.3697. (PMID: 19757444)
• 20 Ziegler A, Lange S, Bender R. Uberlebenszeitanalyse: Eigenschaften und Kaplan-Meier Methode. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2007; 132 (Suppl. 01) e36-e38 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-959038.
• 21 Bahrs C, Bauer M, Blumenstock G. et al. The complexity of proximal humeral fractures is age and gender specific. J Orthop Sci 2013; 18: 465-470 DOI: 10.1007/s00776-013-0361-x. (PMID: 23420342)
• 22 Katthagen JC, Grabowski S, Huber M. et al. Epidemiology and treatment reality of proximal humeral fractures at a level-1 trauma center. Obere Extremität 2016; 11: 112-118 DOI: 10.1007/s11678-016-0362-4.
• 23 Neuhaus V, Swellengrebel CHJ, Bossen JKJ. et al. What are the factors influencing outcome among patients admitted to a hospital with a proximal humeral fracture?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 1698-1706 DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-2876-z.
• 24 Haasters F, Siebenbürger G, Helfen T. et al. Complications of locked plating for proximal humeral fractures-are we getting any better?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: e295-e303 DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.015. (PMID: 27079217)
• 25 Clinton J, Franta A, Polissar NL. et al. Proximal humeral fracture as a risk factor for subsequent hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 503-511 DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01529. (PMID: 19255209)
• 26 Inauen C, Platz A, Meier C. et al. Quality of life after osteosynthesis of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2013; 27: e74-e80 DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182693cac. (PMID: 22810549)
• 27 Clement ND, Duckworth AD, McQueen MM. et al. The outcome of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly: predictors of mortality and function. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 970-977 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.32894. (PMID: 24986953)
• 28 Shortt NL, Robinson CM. Mortality after low-energy fractures in patients aged at least 45 years old. J Orthop Trauma 2005; 19: 396-400 DOI: 10.1097/01.bot.0000155311.04886.7e. (PMID: 16003199)
• 29 Maugendre E, Gadisseux B, Chantelot C. et al. Epidemiology and mortality in older patients treated by reverse shoulder arthroplasty for displaced proximal humerus fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105: 1509-1513 DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.07.026. (PMID: 31732395)
• 30 Empana J-P, Dargent-Molina P, Bréart G. Effect of hip fracture on mortality in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 685-690 DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52203.x. (PMID: 15086646)
• 31 Blanco JF, Da Casa C, Pablos-Hernández C. et al. 30-day mortality after hip fracture surgery: Influence of postoperative factors. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0246963 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246963. (PMID: 33592047)