Functional and clinical outcomes of patients aged younger and older than 85 years after rehabilitation post‐hip fracture surgery in a co‐managed <scp>o</scp>rthogeriatric <scp>u</scp>nit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Literature investigating rehabilitation outcomes after hip surgery among individuals aged ≥85 years is sparse. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of patients aged under and over 85 years, and assessed factors potentially associated with rehabilitation success as described by the Barthel Index (BI). METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, we prospectively enrolled 328 patients (n = 152 aged <85 years, n = 176 aged ≥85 years) admitted to an orthogeriatric unit (Sondrio, Italy) with a diagnosis of hip fracture requiring surgical treatment. We excluded patients who were being treated conservatively. Outcomes included absolute functional gain (AFG; BI at discharge - BI on admission), rehabilitation effectiveness index (AFG / length of stay) and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Older patients were more functionally (mean BI on admission: 11.7 ± 9.6 vs 16.4 ± 12.2, P < 0.001) and cognitively impaired than their younger counterparts (34.1% vs 18.4%, P < 0.001). Surgery time (1.9 ± 1.2 vs 2.3 ±1.3 days, P = 0.008) and length of stay were shorter for older patients (5.7 ± 2.1 vs 6.6 ± 2.4 days, P < 0.001). There were no differences in terms of complications. Patients aged <85 years showed better functional outcomes (BI, AFG, REI) at discharge than patients aged ≥85 years (mean AFG: 38.2 ± 24.2 vs 26.1 ± 22.0, P < 0.001). BI on admission (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08) and cognitive impairment (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.98) were independently associated with rehabilitation outcomes, regardless of chronological age. CONCLUSIONS: Both groups (aged <85 and ≥85 years) showed a significant functional improvement at discharge. Older patients show a residual ability to recover after surgery. A high rehabilitation efficiency - regardless of age - should be pursued even for the oldest old patients experiencing hip fracture. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2018; 18: 1194-1199.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".