Risk factors for one-year mortality in 440 femoral peri-implant fractures: insights from the PIPPAS prospective, multicentre, observational study

Aguado, Héctor J.; The PIPPAS Study Group

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.61.BJO-2024-0113.R1

Risk factors for one-year mortality in 440 femoral peri-implant fractures: insights from the PIPPAS prospective, multicentre, observational study

License

Citation

Aguado HJ, The PIPPAS Study Group. Risk factors for one-year mortality in 440 femoral peri-implant fractures: insights from the PIPPAS prospective, multicentre, observational study. Bone Jt Open. 2025 Jan 9;6(1):43-52. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.61.BJO-2024-0113.R1

Abstract

Aims: The Peri-Implant and PeriProsthetic Survival AnalysiS (PIPPAS) study aimed to investigate the risk factors for one-year mortality of femoral peri-implant fractures (FPIFs). Methods: This prospective, multicentre, observational study involved 440 FPIF patients with a minimum one-year follow-up. Data on demographics, clinical features, fracture characteristics, management, and mortality rates were collected and analyzed using both univariate and multivariate analyses. FPIF patients were elderly (median age 87 years (IQR 81 to 92)), mostly female (82.5%, n = 363), and frail: median clinical frailty scale 6 (IQR 4 to 7), median Pfeiffer 4 (1 to 7), median age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 6 (IQR 5 to 7), and 58.9% (n = 250) were American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III. Results: Overall, 90.5% (n = 398) of the patients were treated surgically, 57.0% (n = 227) retained the implant, and 88.7% (n = 353) managed with fixation. Mortality rates were 8.2% (n = 3.6) in-hospital, 11.4% (n = 50) at 30 days, 21.1% (n = 93) at six months, and 21.6% (n = 95) at 12 months. Medical complications, mainly delirium, were common in the acute setting (52.7%, n = 215). The nonunion rate was 4.1% (n = 18). Mortality risk factors in the univariate analysis were age, living at a nursing home, no walking outdoors, frailty variables, fractures in the distal epiphysis, fractures around a proximal nail, discharge to a healthcare facility, and no osteoporotic treatment at discharge. Protective factors against mortality in the univariate analysis were surgical treatment by an experienced surgeon, management without an arthroplasty, allowing full weightbearing, mobilization in the first 48 hours postoperatively, and geriatric involvement. Risk factors for mortality in the multivariate analysis were cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer's questionnaire) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.14 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.23), p = 0.002), age-adjusted CCI (HR 1.18 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.30), p = 0.001), and antiaggregant or anticoagulant medication at admission (HR 2.00 (95% CI 1.19 to 3.38), p = 0.009). Haemoglobin level at admission was protective against mortality (HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.97), p = 0.018). Conclusion: Mortality in FPIFs occurs mainly within the first six months of follow-up. Early co-management and clinical optimization, particularly targeting frail older patients, is crucial in reducing mortality following these fractures.