Editor’s Choice
Rate of Bone Mineral Density Testing and Subsequent Fracture-Free Interval After Distal Forearm Fracture in the Medicare Population

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.11.020Get rights and content

Purpose

Distal forearm fractures are prevalent among the Medicare population. Many patients who sustain these fractures have poor bone health and are at increased risk for subsequent fractures. We sought to determine the rate of bone mineral density (BMD) testing and subsequent fragility fracture-free interval after distal forearm fractures in the Medicare population.

Methods

We examined the 5% Medicare Standard Analytic File dataset using the PearlDiver Application from 2005 to 2014 to identify patients with distal forearm fractures based on International Classification of Diseases–Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. We queried these records to determine the incidence and timing of BMD testing after fracture and the number of patients who went on to hip or vertebral fractures. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan-Meier analysis with hip or vertebral fracture as the end point.

Results

A total of 37,473 patients with distal forearm fractures were identified who did not have BMD testing within the 2 years before fracture. Only 9,605 of this unscreened cohort underwent testing after the fracture (26%) and only 2,684 underwent testing within 6 months (7%). The patients least likely to be tested were males (9%), those aged over 85 years (12%), and those less than 65 years (22%). Twenty percent of these patients sustained a subsequent hip or vertebral fracture (n = 7,326). Patients who underwent testing after fracture had a longer fracture-free interval compared with patients without BMD testing (819 vs 579 days). When separated by sex and controlling for comorbidities, males with BMD testing had a worsened fracture-free interval whereas females had an improved fracture-free interval.

Conclusions

Bone mineral density testing is underused nationwide in patients sustaining distal forearm fractures despite current guidelines. Orthopedic surgeons should ensure proper testing of patients because this may be an important time point for intervention.

Type of study/level of evidence

Prognosis II.

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

We examined the Medicare Standard Analytic File dataset using the PearlDiver application (PearlDiver Inc) from 2005 to 2014 to identify patients with distal forearm fractures. PearlDiver is a national database of insurance billing records that can be used to identify patients based on International Classification of Diseases–Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology billing codes. The Medicare Standard Analytic File dataset represents 5% of the Medicare population and contains

Results

A total of 46,992 patients were identified who had sustained a distal forearm fracture (Table 2). Females comprised 81% of the cohort; the largest single age group was aged 85 years and older. Twenty percent of patients had undergone a BMD scan within the previous 2 years. Only 5% of men had screening before fracture, compared with 24% of women (P < .05). The most common fracture billing code was ICD-9-D-81342, which represents a closed fracture of the distal end of radius alone. The annual

Discussion

This study found that Medicare patients are not being routinely assessed for osteoporosis after distal forearm fractures. Approximately 1 in 4 patients underwent screening at any time point and less than 1 in 10 underwent testing within 6 months of fracture. Males were particularly undertested. About 1 in 5 patients sustaining these fractures had a subsequent hip or vertebral fracture. On average, patients who underwent testing after distal forearm fracture had improved fracture-free interval

References (25)

  • E. Truumees

    Osteoporosis

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

    (2001)
  • S.H. Gehlbach et al.

    Hospital care of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures

    Osteoporos Int

    (2003)
  • Cited by (5)

    • What's New in Hand and Wrist Surgery

      2022, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

    No benefits in any form have been received or will be received related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

    View full text