Skip to main content

Table 1 Demographic data and risk factors of dysphagia in hip fracture patients ≥65 years of age

From: The prevalence, risk factors and prognostic implications of dysphagia in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery in Korea

Variable

Total

Dysphagia

Non-dysphagic

   

(N = 546)

(n = 29)

(n = 517)

   

Mean (SD) or n (%)

Mean (SD) or n (%)

Mean (SD) or n (%)

Chi-square

Effect size

P

Age (years)

80.3 (7.0)

82.3 (6.0)

80.1 (7.0)

 

0.307

0.109

Gender (male/female)

153/393

14/15

139/378

6.229

0.108

0.013

BMI (kg/m2)

22.1 (4.3)

20.6 (3.6)

22.2 (4.3)

 

0.370

0.053

ASA classification ≥3

295 (54.0%)

23 (79.3%)

272 (52.6%)

7.881

0.120

0.005

Stroke

90 (16.5%)

9 (31.0%)

81 (15.7%)

4.710

0.093

0.030

Dementia

86 (15.8%)

8 (27.6%)

78 (15.1%)

3.233

0.077

0.072

Delirium

38 (7.0%)

5 (17.2%)

33 (6.4%)

5.000

0.096

0.025

Smoking

28 (5.1%)

5 (17.2%)

23 (4.4%)

9.852

0.134

0.002

Fracture type

   

1.731

0.056

0.188

 Femoral neck

274 (50.2%)

18 (62.1%)

256 (49.5%)

 

 Intertrochanteric

272 (49.8%)

11 (37.9%)

261 (50.5%)

 

Operation time (min)

110.6 (24.1)

116.8 (39.4)

109.7 (22.9)

 

0.298

0.122

Interval between injury and operation ≥2 days

70 (12.8%)

7 (24.1%)

63 (12.2%)

3.510

0.080

0.061

Method of anaesthesia

   

0.680

0.035

0.410

 General

242 (44.3%)

15 (51.7%)

227 (43.9%)

   

 Spinal

304 (55.7%)

14 (48.3%)

290 (56.1%)

   

Surgical technique

   

2.976

0.074

0.084

 Arthroplasty

254 (46.5%)

18 (62.1%)

236 (45.6%)

   

 Internal fixation

292 (53.5%)

11 (37.9%)

281 (54.4%)

   

Malnutrition (Albumin< 3.5 g/dL)

110 (20.1%)

14 (48.3%)

96 (18.6%)

15.673

0.120

0.005

Dehydration (BUN/creatinine > 20)

355 (65.0%)

21 (72.4%)

334 (64.6%)

0.958

0.042

0.391

  1. Abbreviations: BMI body mass index, ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists; BUN, blood urea nitrogen
  2. P = Differences between patients with and without dysphagia
  3. To analyse categorical variables, the Chi square test was performed and the phi coefficient was calculated for the effect size
  4. To analyse continuous variables, te t-test was used and Cohen’s d was calculated for the effect size