Atypical Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Might be Considered a Distinct Subtype of Atypical Femoral Fracture: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Objective: The exact relationship among atypical periprosthetic femoral fractures (APFFs), typical periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs), and atypical femur fractures (AFFs) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of APFFs among PFFs and to identify the clinical characteristics, management, and prognosis that distinguish APFFs from typical PFFs and AFFs to further determine the relationship among these three fracture types.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the clinical data of 117 consecutive patients who had PFFs after hip arthroplasty between January 2012 and December 2022 and further classified them into an APFF group and a typical PFF group according to the revised ASBMR diagnostic criteria for AFF. Moreover, patients who had subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures in the same period and met the diagnostic criteria for AFF were recruited and classified into the AFF group. Demographic information, minor features of AFF, comorbidities, history of medication usage, management, and complications were collected and compared among patients with typical PFFs, APFFs, and AFFs.

Results: Eleven PFFs were identified as APFFs, and the prevalence of APFFs among PFFs was 9.4%. Significant differences were found in generalized increase in cortical thickness (p = 0.019), prodromal symptoms (p < 0.001), and the incidence of bilateral fractures (p = 0.010) among the groups, where the incidences of these minor features in the APFF group and the AFF group were higher than those in the typical PFF group. Of note, the duration of fracture healing of APFFs was significantly longer than that of typical PFFs and AFFs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). In addition, the APFF group and the AFF group had higher proportions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (p = 0.004 and p = 0.027, respectively), bisphosphonate (BP) usage (p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively), and longer duration of BP usage (p = 0.003 and p = 0.007, respectively) than the typical PFF group. Furthermore, significant differences were found in management (p < 0.001) and complication rate (p = 0.020) among the groups, and the rate of complications in the APFF group and the AFF group was higher than that in the typical PFF group.

Conclusions: APFFs not only fulfilled the mandatory and major diagnostic criteria for AFF but also had many clinical characteristics, management and prognosis distinguishing them from typical PFFs but resembling AFFs; hence, the diagnostic criteria for AFF might be revised to incorporate APFF as a distinct subtype of the condition.

Keywords

Atypical Femoral Fracture / Atypical Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture / Diagnostic Criteria / Management / Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture / Prevalence

References

[1] Odvina CV, Zerwekh JE, Rao DS, Maalouf N, Gottschalk FA, Pak CYC. Severely suppressed bone turnover: a potential complication of alendronate therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90: 1294–1301.

[2] Shane E, Burr D, Abrahamsen B, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2014; 29: 1–23.

[3] Lenart BA, Neviaser AS, Lyman S, Chang CC, Edobor-Osula F, Steele B, et al. Association of low-energy femoral fractures with prolonged bisphosphonate use: a case control study. Osteoporos Int. 2009; 20: 1353–1362.

[4] Dell RM, Adams AL, Greene DF, Funahashi TT, Silverman SL, Eisemon EO, et al. Incidence of atypical nontraumatic diaphyseal fractures of the femur. J Bone Miner Res. 2012; 27: 2544–2550.

[5] Meier RPH, Perneger TV, Stern R, Rizzoli R, Peter RE. Increasing occurrence of atypical femoral fractures associated with bisphosphonate use. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172: 930–936.

[6] Teo BJX, Koh JSB, Goh SK, Png MA, Chua DTC, Howe TS. Post-operative outcomes of atypical femoral subtrochanteric fracture in patients on bisphosphonate therapy. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B: 658–664.

[7] Prasarn ML, Ahn J, Helfet DL, Lane JM, Lorich DG. Bisphosphonate-associated femur fractures have high complication rates with operative fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470: 2295–2301.

[8] Shane E, Burr D, Ebeling PR, Abrahamsen B, Adler RA, Brown TD, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2010; 25: 2267–2294.

[9] Young SW, Walker CG, Pitto RP. Functional outcome of femoral peri prosthetic fracture and revision hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair study from the New Zealand registry. Acta Orthop. 2008; 79: 483–488.

[10] Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM 2nd, Malchau H. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 2658–2662.

[11] Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 780–785.

[12] Mondanelli N, Facchini A, Troiano E, Muratori F, Bottai V, Giannotti S. Periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures exist: a retrospective study at a single institution. Prevalence on 115 periprosthetic femoral fractures around a primary hip stem. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: 2189–2196.

[13] Streit MR, Merle C, Clarius M, Aldinger PR. Late peri-prosthetic femoral fracture as a major mode of failure in uncemented primary hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 2011; 93: 178–183.

[14] Hirao M, Miyatake K, Takada R, Tachibana T, Okawa A, Jinno T. Periprosthetic fragility fracture of the femur after primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. Mod Rheumatol. 2022; 32: 626–633.

[15] Robinson JD, Leighton RK, Trask K, Bogdan Y, Tornetta P. Periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures in patients on long-term bisphosphonates: a multicenter retrospective review. J Orthop Trauma. 2016; 30: 170–176.

[16] Lee Y-K, Park CH, Kim K-C, Hong SH, Ha YC, Koo KH. Frequency and associated factor of atypical periprosthetic femoral fracture after hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2018; 49: 2264–2268.

[17] Leclerc J-T, Michou L, Vaillancourt F, Pelet S, Simonyan D, Belzile EL. Prevalence and characteristics of atypical periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2019; 34: 83–92.

[18] MacKenzie SA, Ng RT, Snowden G, Powell-Bowns MFR, Duckworth AD, Scott CEH. Periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures exist and are associated with duration of bisphosphonate therapy. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B: 1285–1291.

[19] Dózsai D, Ecseri T, Csonka I, Gárgyán I, Doró P, Csonka Á. Atypical periprosthetic femoral fracture associated with long-term bisphosphonate therapy. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020; 15: 414.

[20] Baba T, Uchino M, Ochi H, Ikuta T, Saita Y, Hagino H, et al. Atypical periprosthetic femoral fractures after arthroplasty for fracture are at high risk of complications. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 14378.

[21] Masri BA, Meek RMD, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 80-95: 80–95.

[22] Schaeffer JF, Attarian DE, Wellman SS. Periprosthetic femoral insufficiency fracture in a patient on long-term bisphosphonate therapy. Duke Orthop J. 2012; 2: 66–69.

[23] Moya-Angeler J, Zambrana L, Westrich GH, Lane JM. Atypical femoral fracture post total hip replacement in a patient with hip osteoarthritis and an ipsilateral cortical thickening. Hip Int. 2016; 26: e19–e23.

[24] Cremers S, Drake MT, Ebetino FH, Bilezikian JP, Russell RGG. Pharmacology of bisphosphonates. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019; 85: 1052–1062.

[25] Ahlman MA, Rissing MS, Gordon L. Evolution of bisphosphonate-related atypical fracture retrospectively observed with DXA scanning. J Bone Miner Res. 2012; 27: 496–498.

[26] Mohan PC, Howe TS, Koh JSB, Png MA. Radiographic features of multifocal endosteal thickening of the femur in patients on long-term bisphosphonate therapy. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23: 222–227.

[27] Yeh W-L, Su C-Y, Chang C-W, Chen CH, Fu TS, Chen LH, et al. Surgical outcome of atypical subtrochanteric and femoral fracture related to bisphosphonates use in osteoporotic patients with or without teriparatide treatment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18: 527.

[28] Ramani A, Wagner R. Periprosthetic femoral stress fracture after bisphosphonate treatment resulting in nonunion successfully treated with teriparatide: a case report. JBJS Case Connect. 2016; 6: e37.

[29] Toro G, Ojeda-Thies C, Calabrò G, Toro G, Moretti A, Guerra GMD, et al. Management of atypical femoral fracture: a scoping review and comprehensive algorithm. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17: 227.

[30] Pak JH, Paprosky WG, Jablonsky WS, et al. Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 295: 172–178.

[31] Mokka J, Keemu H, Koivisto M, Stormi T, Vahlberg T, Virolainen P, et al. Experience of structural onlay allografts for the treatment of bone deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. Scand J Surg. 2013; 102: 265–270.

[32] Ding Z-C, Ling T-X, Yuan M-C, Qin YZ, Mou P, Wang HY, et al. Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21: 218.

[33] Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S, Rastogi D. High survivorship with Cementless stems and cortical strut allografts for large femoral bone defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473: 2990–3000.

[34] Malinin T, Latta LL, Wagner JL, Brown MD. Healing of fractures with freeze-dried cortical bone plates. Comparison with compression plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984; 190: 281–286.

[35] Ding Z, Ling T, Mou P, Wang D, Zhou K, Zhou Z. Bone restoration after revision hip arthroplasty with femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems with cortical strut allografts. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020; 15: 194.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.