Biological age in orthopedics: concepts, assessment and clinical recommendations
This narrative review describes biological age as a multidimensional risk profile and recommends staged assessment using frailty, muscle strength, mobility, endurance, nutrition and cognition; molecular aging clocks are not currently recommended for routine care. [1]
Automatic summary · not editorially reviewed
The key findings
Chronological age does not sufficiently reflect differences in physiological reserve, resilience and regenerative capacity, while biological age is estimated from molecular, physiological and functional characteristics. [1]
Frailty, sarcopenia, gait speed, chair-rise performance, grip strength, endurance and deficit accumulation have the greatest practical value. [1]
Frailty and sarcopenia predicted complications, prolonged care, non-home discharge and mortality after orthopedic procedures beyond chronological age. [1]
The source at a glance
- Study type / format
- Narrative review (abstract)
- Population / context
- People undergoing orthopedic procedures and orthopedic rehabilitation, as discussed in the reviewed literature
- Summary based on
- Study abstract
- Original publication
- September 14, 2026
Biological age versus chronological age in orthopedics
The review starts from the observation that chronological age does not sufficiently reflect differences in physiological reserve, resilience and regenerative capacity. Biological age, by contrast, is estimated from molecular, physiological and functional characteristics. The authors aimed to describe biological age concepts and assessment methods and to evaluate their relevance for orthopedic rehabilitation.
Supporting source [1]
Frailty and sarcopenia predict outcomes after orthopedic procedures
Epigenetic, phenotypic and laboratory-based models capture different dimensions of aging and are not directly comparable. For practice, the review rates frailty, sarcopenia, gait speed, chair-rise performance, grip strength, endurance and deficit accumulation as most valuable. Frailty and sarcopenia predicted complications, prolonged care, non-home discharge and mortality after orthopedic procedures beyond chronological age.
Supporting source [1]
Staged assessment recommended; molecular clocks not routine
The authors conclude that biological age should be interpreted as a multidimensional risk profile. They recommend a staged assessment combining frailty screening, muscle strength, mobility, endurance, nutrition and cognition. Molecular aging clocks are not currently recommended for routine care. These are the authors' recommendations from a narrative review, not results of a new comparative study.
Supporting source [1]
How to interpret this
Abstract only; the full text was not reviewed. This is a narrative review based on a structured database and manual search, not a new study, so the reported predictive findings come from the reviewed literature and no effect sizes, sample sizes or follow-up periods are given here.
Based on the study abstract; the full paper, tables and supplementary data were not reviewed.
Source & supporting passages
Dalichau S, Meyer P. · europepmc.org · September 14, 2026