European Geriatric Medicine

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 147–150 | Cite as

Pelvic fragility fractures in older people admitted to hospital: the clinical burden

  • Puo Nen Lim
  • Li Jin Ooi
  • Terence OngEmail author
  • Catherine Neighbour
  • Opinder Sahota
Brief Report



Pelvic fragility fractures are common in older people. To deliver better care in hospital, a better understanding of their characteristics and outcomes post-hospitalisation will allow clinicians to better design hospital services to manage their needs.


Using routinely collected electronic hospital records over 3 months, data were collected and analysed on consecutive patients admitted with pelvic fragility fractures (as defined by a pelvic fracture sustaining following a fall from standing height or less) to acute medical wards for older people.


Twenty-four patients were admitted over this period. Their mean age was 87 years (SD 9.4), the majority were female (83%), a significant proportion had cognitive impairment with an abbreviated mental test score of ≤ 7 (67%), and the median number of comorbid conditions was three. These patients were at high risk of future fractures (50% with a known diagnosis of osteoporosis; significant FRAX scores; 75% had a fall) but only 50% had a bone health assessment. The median duration in hospital was 13 days. 33% of patients were discharged home directly while the rest were discharged to either a care home or another hospital for further rehabilitation. 54% had a hospital-related complication including kidney injury, delirium, and hospital-acquired infections—there were two inpatient mortalities. At 3 months post-fracture, 54% were readmitted and 33% died.


Pelvic fragility fractures are associated with worse inpatient and post-discharge clinical outcomes. This is an older multi-morbid cohort needing significant post-fracture rehabilitation care. Their care in hospital needs to address their management complexities.


Aged Pelvic fracture Hospital 



The author group is grateful for the support provided by the Department of Healthcare for Older People. T.O. is a recipient of a research training fellowship from the Dunhill Medical Trust (Grant No. RTF49/0114). No funds were obtained for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest associated with this study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Data were extracted from routinely collected service data in compliance with the hospital’s procedure and information governance standards. Informed consent was not required as part of a hospital improvement project.


  1. 1.
    Anonymous (1991) Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 90:107–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curtis EM, van der Velde R, Moon RJ, van den Bergh JPW, Geusens P, de Vries F, van Staa TP, Cooper C, Harvey NC (2016) Epidemiology of fractures in the United Kingdom 1988–2012: variation with age, sex, geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Bone 87:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melton LJ, Sampson JM, Morrey B, Ilstrup D (1981) Epidemiologic features of pelvic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 155:43–47Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kannus P, Palvaene M, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Jarvinen M (2000) Epidemiology of osteoporotic pelvic fractures in elderly people in Finland: sharp increase in 1970–1997 and alarming projections for the new millennium. Osteoporos Int 11:443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marrinan S, Pearce MS, Jiang XY, Waters S, Shanshal Y (2015) Admission for osteoporotic pelvic fractures and predictors of length of hospital stay, mortality and loss of independence. Age Ageing 44:258–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stevenson MD, Davis SE, Kanis JA (2006) The hospitalisation costs and out-patient costs of fragility fractures. Women’s Health Medicine. 3:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rommens PM, Hofmann A (2013) Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury 44:1733–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rommens PM, Ossendorf C, Pairon P, Dietz S, Wagner D, Hofman A (2015) Clinical pathways for fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: personal experience and review of the literature. J Orthop Sci. 20:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sahota O (2018) The ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation) study. ISRCTN. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Puo Nen Lim
    • 1
  • Li Jin Ooi
    • 1
  • Terence Ong
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Catherine Neighbour
    • 1
  • Opinder Sahota
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Healthcare of Older People, B Floor, South Block, Queens Medical CentreNottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Division of Rehabilitation and AgeingUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations