Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To evaluate the feasibility of using the recently developed OF-Pelvis-Score (OFP-Score) for treatment decisions in patients with osteoporotic fractures of the pelvis (OFP) based on standard clinical diagnostics.</p> Methods <p>A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted at 14 trauma centers including 375 consecutive patients who were treated for an OFP over a period of 19&#xa0;months. All fractures were classified according to the OF-Pelvis-Classification (OFP-Classification). The decision for either conservative or surgical therapy was made independently of the OFP-Score recommendation. Final decisions were compared to the recommendations given by the OFP-Score.</p> Results <p>375 patients with an average age of 81.0&#xa0;years (± 7.6) were included, mainly female (85.6%). According to the OFP-Score, surgery was recommended in 60.5%, and conservative treatment was recommended in 21.9%. In 66 patients (17.6%) the score was undetermined with no treatment recommendation. In daily practice, 33.6% of the patients were treated conservatively and the remaining 66.4% operatively. Overall, the agreement between the OFP-Score and the performed treatment was 91%. The score was obtained in a mean of 3.1&#xa0;min (± 2.9). All patients improved significantly with respect of VAS (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and ODI (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) during their hospital stay.</p> Conclusion <p>Patients with osteoporotic sacral fractures improved clinically both after surgical and conservative treatment. The OFP-Score-based therapy recommendations showed a promisingly high rate of agreement with the therapy of daily practice. The scoring method provides a structured framework that supports clinical decision-making, complementing clinical judgment and other evidence-based tools in guiding treatment choices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Prospective clinical feasibility assessment of the Osteoporotic Pelvis Fracture Score (OFP-Score)—a multicenter prospective cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月23日

查看全文
  • Ulrich J. A. Spiegl,
  • Pamela Schanderl,
  • Volker Zimmermann,
  • Bernhard Ullrich,
  • Martin Naisan,
  • Felix Kohler,
  • Erik Wegner,
  • Michael Müller,
  • Frank Hartmann,
  • Klaus J. Schnake,
  • Imke Schmerwitz,
  • Lars Behr,
  • Max J. Scheyerer,
  • Robert Pätzold,
  • Sebastian Grüninger,
  • Thomas Mendel,
  • Georg Osterhoff

摘要

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility of using the recently developed OF-Pelvis-Score (OFP-Score) for treatment decisions in patients with osteoporotic fractures of the pelvis (OFP) based on standard clinical diagnostics.

Methods

A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted at 14 trauma centers including 375 consecutive patients who were treated for an OFP over a period of 19 months. All fractures were classified according to the OF-Pelvis-Classification (OFP-Classification). The decision for either conservative or surgical therapy was made independently of the OFP-Score recommendation. Final decisions were compared to the recommendations given by the OFP-Score.

Results

375 patients with an average age of 81.0 years (± 7.6) were included, mainly female (85.6%). According to the OFP-Score, surgery was recommended in 60.5%, and conservative treatment was recommended in 21.9%. In 66 patients (17.6%) the score was undetermined with no treatment recommendation. In daily practice, 33.6% of the patients were treated conservatively and the remaining 66.4% operatively. Overall, the agreement between the OFP-Score and the performed treatment was 91%. The score was obtained in a mean of 3.1 min (± 2.9). All patients improved significantly with respect of VAS (p < 0.001) and ODI (p < 0.001) during their hospital stay.

Conclusion

Patients with osteoporotic sacral fractures improved clinically both after surgical and conservative treatment. The OFP-Score-based therapy recommendations showed a promisingly high rate of agreement with the therapy of daily practice. The scoring method provides a structured framework that supports clinical decision-making, complementing clinical judgment and other evidence-based tools in guiding treatment choices.