Abstract
Summary
There are large regional differences in the incidence of hip fracture in Germany. These differences were unexpected and do not follow a north-to-south or an east-to-west gradient. But they are of high socioeconomic importance and cannot be explained by geographic location, the age structure of the population, and only to a small extent by the regulation of specific medication.
Introduction
The most important complications and the major cost factors of osteoporosis are fractures. In order to develop strategies for fracture prevention, knowledge about different incidence rates and possible causes is necessary.
Methods
In order to detect persistent differences in the incidence of hip fractures between the former eastern and western states of Germany, structured diagnostic data of patients hospitalized between 2000 and 2011 were used to determine the regional incidence of hip fractures in the individual federal states of Germany. To account for error due to repeated admissions and double registrations, the frequency of fractures was corrected by a factor of 0.89.
Results
Our analysis of the 10-year period from 2000 to 2011 did not confirm the difference between eastern and western Germany reported in the national literature, or the north-south gradient for Germany as reported in several European publications. We found significant differences in the incidence of fractures in adjacent territorial states such as Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania or Saxony and Thuringia. Particularly, high incidence rates over the entire period were noted in the city-states of Hamburg, Berlin, and Bremen.
Conclusion
The reason for such differences is still unclear and, thus, the consequences of urbanization must be considered to explain diverse incidence rates. In general, the investigation of causes should be based on the use of a multivariate model that takes additional factors such as specific drug use, socioeconomic aspects, environmental aspects, education, and health care into account. There are large regional differences in the incidence of hip fracture in Germany. These differences were unexpected and do not follow a north-to-south or an east-to-west gradient. But they are of high socioeconomic importance and cannot be explained by geographic location, the age structure of the population and only to a small extent by the regulation of specific medication.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wildner M, Clark DE (2001) Hip fracture incidence in East and West Germany: reassessment ten years after unification. Osteoporos Int 12:136–139
Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Meyer G (2008) Inzidenz von Hüftfrakturen in Deutschland—Auswertung der Krankenhausdiagnosestatistik 2004. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 133:125–128
Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Meyer G (2008) Trend of hip fracture incidence in Germany 1995–2004: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int 19:1139–1145
Defèr A, Möhrke W, Abendroth K (2010) Entwicklung der Inzidenz der Hüftfrakturen von 2000 bis 2007 in Deutschland Osteologie. 19(Suppl.1):S49
Defèr A, Möhrke W, Abendroth K Differente Entwicklung proximaler Hüftfrakturen in den Bundesländern Deutschlands von 2000 bis 2007—Versorgungsforschung in der Osteologie Med Report 34:2010 Seite 34
Diagnosedaten der Krankenhäuser ab 2000. Gliederungsmerkmale: Jahre, Wohnsitz, Alter, Geschlecht, Verweildauer. www.gbe-bund.de (last accessed on 21 February 2013)
Bevölkerung im Jahresdurchschnitt. (Primärquelle: Statistisches Bundesamt, Fortschreibung des Bevölkerungsstandes). www.gbe-bund.de (Thematische Recherche: Bevölkerung im Jahresdurchschnitt. Gliederungsmerkmale: Jahre, Region, Alter, Geschlecht). (Last accessed on 21 February 2013)
Dobson AJ, Kuulasmaa K, Eberle E, Scherer J (1991) Confidence intervals for weighted sums of Poisson parameters. Stat Med 10:457–462
Hoffmann F, Glaeske G (2006) Inzidenz proximaler Femurfrakturen in Deutschland Personenbezogene Analyse einer Versichertenpopulation. Gesundheitswesen 68:161–164
Bäßgen K, Westphal T, Haar P, Kundt G, Mittelmeier T, Schober HC (2013) Population-based prospective study on the incidence of osteoporosis-associated fractures in a German population of 200,413 inhabitants. J Public Health 35:255–61
Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden, Destatis 2011 Fachserie 3, Reihe 5.1
Hinton RY, Lennox DW, Ebert FR, Jacobsen SJ, Smith GS (1995) Relative rates of fracture of the hip in the United States. Geographic, sex, and age variations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:695–702
Karagas MR, Lu-Yao GL, Barrett JA, Beach ML, Baron JA (1996) Heterogeneity of hip fracture: age, race, sex, and geographic patterns of femoral neck and trochanteric fractures among the US elderly. Am J Epidemiol 143:677–682
Barbier S, Ecochard R, Schott A-M, Colin C, Delmas PD, Jaglal B, Couris C (2009) Geographical variations in hip fracture risk for women: strong effects hidden in standardised ratios. Osteoporos Int 20:371–377
De Pina MF, Alves SM, Barbosa M, Barros H (2008) Hip fractures cluster in space: an epidemiological analysis in Portugal. Osteoporos Int 19:1797–1804
Alvarez-Nebreda ML, Jiménez Ana B, Rodríguez P, Serra JA (2008) Epidemiology of hip fracture in the elderly in Spain. Bone 42:278–285
Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Rapp K, Dragano N et al (2009) Hip fractures and area level socioeconomic conditions: a population-based study. BMC Public Health 9:114
Conflicts of interest
None
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Defèr, A., Schober, HC., Möhrke, W. et al. Are there still east-to-west differences in the incidence of hip fractures in Germany?. Arch Osteoporos 9, 195 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0195-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-014-0195-y