ACCEPTABILITY OF BIORESORBABLE FRACTURE FIXATION DEVICES TO PEOPLE WITH OSTEOPOROSIS

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesOsteoporotic fractures tend to be more challenging than fractures in healthy bone and the efficacy of metal screw fixation decreases with decreasing bone mineral density making it more difficult for such screws to gain purchase. This leads to increased complication rates such as malunion, non-union and implant failure (1). Bioresorbable polymer devices have seen clinical success in fracture fixation and are a promising alternative for metallic devices but are rarely used in the osteoporotic population. To address this, we are developing a system that may allow osteoporotic patients to avail of bioresorbable devices (2) but it is important to establish if patients have any reservations about having a plastic resorbable device instead of a metal one. Therefore the aim of this study was to explore the acceptability of bioresorbable fracture fixation devices to people with osteoporosis.MethodsA cross sectional descriptive study was conducted in a UK wide population using convenience sampling. An online survey comprising nine survey questions and nine demographic questions was developed in Microsoft Teams and tested for face validity in a small pilot study (n=6). Following amendments and ethical approval, the survey was distributed by the Royal Osteoporosis Society on their website and social media platforms. People were invited to take part if they lived in the UK, were over 18 years old and had been diagnosed with osteoporosis. The survey was open for three weeks in May 2023. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThere were 112 responses. Eight participants had not been diagnosed with osteoporosis and therefore did not meet the study criteria. Of the remaining 104, 102 were female and 2 were male and 102 were white (2 chose not to disclose their ethnicity). The majority of participants were aged 55–64 (34.6%) or 65–74 (37.5%), were college/university educated (38.5%) and had previously sustained a fragility fracture (52.9%). Only 3.9% of participants had heard of bioresorbable fracture fixation devices compared to 62.5% for metal devices. Most people were unsure if they would trust one type of device over the other (58.7%) and would ask for more information if their surgeon were to suggest using a bioresorbable device to fix their fracture (61.5%). The most commonly reported concerns were about device safety and efficacy: toxicity of the degradation products and the device breaking down too early before the fracture had healed. Two participants cited environmental concerns about increased use of plastics as a reason they would decline such a device.ConclusionsAs expected, participants had little to no knowledge of bioresorbable polymer fixation devices. In general, they were willing to be guided by their surgeon but would require supporting information on the safety and efficacy of their long-term use. The results of this study show that it will be important to have relevant and understandable information to give patients when recommending these devices as treatments to ensure and support a shared-decision approach to patient care.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.