Original research
Geriatric fracture centre vs usual care after proximal femur fracture in older patients: what are the benefits? Results of a large international prospective multicentre study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [].
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Author's answer to letter from Tomoyuki Kawada
    • Alexander Joeris, Head of Clinical Science AO Foundation, AO Innovation Translation Center (AO ITC)

    Dear Prof. Kawada,
    Thank you for pointing out the results reported by Prestmo et al., who had randomized home-dwelling patients with hip-fractures aged 70 years or older and who were able to walk 10 m before their fracture, to either comprehensive geriatric care or orthopaedic care in the emergency department [1]. They evaluated mobility with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and found a significantly better outcome in patients allocated to geriatric care 4 months after the intervention. This result is very well in line with our findings of improved mobility in Geriatric Fracture Center (GFC) patients, which we measured with the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and the Parker Mobility Score (PMS), as shown in Figure 2 and eTable 6 of our publication.
    You also pointed out the study of Marcantonio et al., who reported lower rates of delirium in patients receiving geriatric care [2]. In this randomized monocentre study, one of the study groups received regular and standardized care through a geriatrician, while the other group was treated as per usual care. Patients in both groups underwent daily interviews and delirium was assessed using the CAM diagnostic algorithm. We would like to point out that this methodology is fundamentally different from ours. The standardized daily interviews in the quoted study were aimed at making it impossible to miss any episode of delirium, which allowed them to study the pure effect of the geriatrician's care on the dev...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    RE: Geriatric fracture centre vs usual care after proximal femur fracture in older patients: what are the benefits?

    Blauth et al. conducted one-year follow-up study with participation of international multicentre (1). The authors determined the effect of treatment in geriatric fracture centres (GFC) on the incidence of major adverse events (MAEs) in patients with hip fractures by setting usual care centres (UCC) as a control. A total of 281 patients, aged ≥70 with operatively treated proximal femur fractures, were analyzed. Odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of patients in GFC against UCC for an MAE was 4.56 (2.23 to 9.34). In addition, OR (95% CI) of patients in GFC against UCC for pneumonia and delirium were 3.40 (1.08 to 10.70) and 5.76 (1.64 to 20.23), respectively. The authors explained the increased OR as higher ability of detecting MAEs in GFC than that in UCC, and considered as positive effect of geriatric comanagement. I have comments about their study.

    Blauth et al. cited 4 randomized controlled trials in the past, and most recent article was reported by Prestmo et al (2). They compared the effectiveness of treatment for hip fracture between GFC and UCC. Patients, aged ≥70, were able to walk 10 m before their fracture. Mean Short Physical Performance Battery scores at 4 months were significantly higher in GFC patients than that in UCC patients, and they recognized the advantage of GFC for the treatment of older patients with hip fractures.

    Regarding delirium as a MAE in patients after hip-fracture repair, Marcantonio et al. reported that relative risk...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.