Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026
Method and Instrumented Fixture for Femoral Fracture Testing in a Sideways Fall-on-the-Hip Position
Published on: August 17, 2017
Frailty is a Vital Tool for Predicting Outcomes Following Prophylactic Femur Fixation
Omar Sbaih1, Victor Koltenyuk, Nithin Gupta
1From the Georgetown University School of Medicine (Sbaih), Washington, DC, REAM Orthopedics (Sbaih, Koltenyuk, Gupta, Dixon, Gill, Williamson), Columbus, OH, Bowers Neurosurgical Frailty and Outcomes Data Science Lab (Sbaih, Koltenyuk, Gupta, Gill), Flint, MI, New York Medical College (Koltenyuk), Valhalla, NY, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (Gupta), Jefferson Health New Jersey, Cherry Hill, NJ, American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine (Dixon), Miramar, FL, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine (Gill), Phoenix, AZ, and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (Ogburn, Williamson, Alderete), University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX.
Background:
Frailty measures have become increasingly common in the literature as proposed mechanisms for identifying patients at risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. Prophylactic femur fixation in patients with metastatic disease can prevent future fracture and improve quality of life; however, these patients are inherently high-risk surgical candidates. The role of this study is to characterize the relationship between frailty and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing prophylactic femoral fixation (ProphFF) and compare the predictive ability of different frailty measures for adverse outcomes in this population.
Methods:
Data from the 2015 to 2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used. The study focused on patients aged ≥18 years undergoing ProphFF and those undergoing PathFF. Frailty was measured using both the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI-rev) and the five-factor modified Frailty Index (mFI-5). Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, major complications, unplanned readmission, and unplanned revision surgery, nonhome discharge, and extended length of stay. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline differences of age, body mass index, sex, functional status, and ASA between ProphFF and PathFF groups. Statistical methods included multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to evaluate the relationships between frailty measures and postoperative outcomes.
Results:
A total of 921 patients (57.7% female, median age 65 years [IQR, 56 to 72 years]) undergoing ProphFF or PathFF were included. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that increasing frailty increased odds of 30-day mortality, with each 1-point increase in RAI-rev and mFI-5 associated with a 5% (OR: 1.05, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.08; P < 0.01) and 31% (OR: 1.31, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.71; P < 0.05) higher mortality risk, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 842 patients (421 prophylactic and 421 pathologic). Patients undergoing PathFF had higher likelihood of mortality compared with patients undergoing ProphFF (OR: 2.79, 95% CI, 1.61 to 4.82; P < 0.01). RAI-rev (C-statistic 0.73 [95% CI, 0.71 to 0.75]) had superior discrimination for mortality compared with mFI-5 (C-statistic 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.59], P < 0.001).
Discussion:
Increasing preoperative frailty scores, particularly as measured by the revised Risk Analysis Index, were independent predictors of mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing prophylactic femur fixation. Pathologic fracture fixation demonstrated higher risk of revision surgery and mortality compared with prophylactic fixation. These findings suggest that the RAI-rev may be a valuable tool for identifying high-risk patients and optimizing surgical candidate selection before prophylactic femur fixation, potentially improving outcomes in this complex patient population.
