Feasibility, acceptability and prognostic value of muscle mass and strength measurement in patients with hip fracture: a systematic review.

Purpose: Sarcopenia is diagnosed on the basis of low muscle strength, with low muscle mass used to confirm diagnosis. The added value of measuring muscle mass is unclear. We undertook a systematic review to assess whether muscle mass measurement in patients with hip fracture was acceptable, feasible and independently associated with adverse outcomes.
Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov) were searched for studies of patients with hip fracture aged ≥ 60 with perioperative muscle mass or strength assessments. Associations with postoperative outcomes including death, length of stay and activities of daily living were extracted. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the AXIS and ROBINS-I tools. Due to the degree of study heterogeneity, data were analysed by narrative synthesis.
Results: The search strategy identified 3317 records. 36 studies were included with 7860 participants. Acceptability of muscle mass measurement was not assessed, but measurement appeared feasible using biompedance, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography. Univariate analyses indicated that lower muscle mass was associated with higher death rates at 30 days, worse mobility, worse activity of daily living metrics and worse physical performance but there was no significant association with length of stay or postoperative complications. Four studies included both muscle mass and strength in multivariable analyses; muscle mass was a significant independent predictor of only one adverse outcome in a single study after adjustment for muscle strength and other predictor variables.
Conclusion: Current data suggest that muscle mass assessment offers no additional prognostic information to muscle strength measures in patients with hip fracture.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent: For this type of study formal consent is not required.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)