Periprosthetic Femoral Stress Fracture After Bisphosphonate Treatment Resulting in Nonunion Successfully Treated with Teriparatide: A Case Report

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

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.

Late Periprosthetic Femoral Stress Fracture Associated with Extra-articular Deformity in a Patient with Fibrous Dysplasia: A Case Report

CASE

In the setting of a total hip arthroplasty performed in a patient with a proximal femoral deformity, atraumatic periprosthetic femoral stress fracture may arise as a complication. We report a rare case of a late periprosthetic femoral stress fracture around a cemented stem in a patient with a history of fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur. After a 10-year uneventful period, the patient complained about a subtle, subacute pain in his left thigh induced by exercise but not with daily axial load. Diagnosis of a nondisplaced, incomplete (i.e., only compromising the lateral femoral cortex) periprosthetic femoral stress fracture was made with plain radiographs, blood work, and bone scintigraphy. Surgical treatment consisted of a minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis bridging the femoral deformity plus percutaneous osteoperiosteal decortication. At 5-year follow-up, the patient was asymptomatic with full return to physical activity, with radiographs evidencing callus formation.

CONCLUSION

Stress fractures around well-fixed femoral stems, while infrequent, should be addressed in patients with a history of severe proximal femur deformity experiencing atraumatic thigh pain.

Is bisphosphonate use a risk factor for atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fractures? - A metanalysis of retrospective cohort studies and systematic review of the current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fractures are not recognised in any widely used classification and therefore little focus is given to them. Multiple case reports and case series demonstrate these fractures exist and are related to bisphosphonate (BP) use.

HYPOTHESIS

Are patients taking long-term BPs at an increased risk of developing an atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fracture? Is a particular BP drug causing an increased risk of fracture? Is there a correlation between the time of BP use and the incidence of fractures? Do vitamin D analogues or parathyroid hormones reduce the time to union?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic review of all available evidence on the existence of periprosthetic/peri-implant atypical fractures in patients taking long-term BPs and metanalysis of available retrospective cohort studies. Selected 1 systematic review, 7 retrospective cohort studies (5 used for metanalysis) and 32 case reports.

RESULTS

Metanalysis reported a risk ratio of 14.1, p=0.25, suggesting bisphosphonates are a risk factor in the development of periprosthetic/peri-implant atypical fractures. The secondary outcomes couldn't be reliably identified due to the small size of available studies and risk of significant bias.

DISCUSSION

Atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fractures are an entity and seem to be associated with the use of bisphosphonates. The benefits of bisphosphonates use outweigh the risks, but clinicians should be aware of atypical fractures and actively search for them when patients on long-term bisphosphonates attend with non-specific pain close to the implant/prosthesis or reduced mobility.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, Systematic review and metanalysis.

A brief review and clinical evidences of teriparatide therapy for atypical femoral fractures associated with long-term bisphosphonate treatment

The risk of bisphosphonate (BP)-associated atypical femur fracture (AFF) has markedly increased over recent decades due to suppression of bone turnover, accumulation of structural micro-damage and reduction of bone remodeling consequent to long-term BP treatment. These medications further delay bone union and result in challenging clinical management. Teriparatide (TPTD), a synthetic human parathyroid hormone, exhibits unique anabolic effects and can increase bone remodeling and improve bone microarchitecture, further promoting fracture healing and reducing the rate of bone non-union. In this study, we briefly define AFF as well as the effects of BPs on AFFs, detailed the role of TPTD in AFF management and the latest clinical therapeutic findings. We have confirmed that TPTD positively promotes the healing of AFFs by reducing the time to bone union and likelihood of non-union. Thus, teriparatide therapy could be considered as an alternative treatment for AFFs, however, further research is required for the establishment of effective clinical guidelines of TPTD use in the management of AFF.

The Treatment of Acute Diaphyseal Long-bones Fractures with Orthobiologics and Pharmacological Interventions for Bone Healing Enhancement: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence

BACKGROUND

The healing of long bones diaphyseal fractures can be often impaired and eventually end into delayed union and non-union. A number of therapeutic strategies have been proposed in combination with surgical treatment in order to enhance the healing process, such as scaffolds, growth factors, cell therapies and systemic pharmacological treatments. Our aim was to investigate the current evidence of bone healing enhancement of acute long bone diaphyseal fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by using Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase and Ovid databases. The combination of the search terms "long-bones; diaphyseal fracture; bone healing; growth factors; cell therapies; scaffolds; graft; bone substitutes; orthobiologics; teriparatide".

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 4156 articles of which 37 papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were the subject of this review. The studies included 1350 patients (837 males and 513 females) with a mean age of 65.3 years old.

CONCLUSIONS

General lack of high-quality studies exists on the use of adjuvant strategies for bone healing enhancement in acute shaft fractures. Strong evidence supports the use of bone grafts, while only moderate evidence demineralized bone matrix and synthetic ceramics. Conflicting results partially supported the use of growth factors and cell therapies in acute fractures. Teriparatide showed promising results, particularly for atypical femoral fractures and periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures exist and are associated with duration of bisphosphonate therapy

Aims

Currently, periprosthetic fractures are excluded from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) definition of atypical femoral fracture (AFFs). This study aims to report on a series of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) that otherwise meet the criteria for AFFs. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures (PAFFs) and quantify the complications of treatment.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective case control study of consecutive patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures between 2007 and 2017. Two observers identified 16 PAFF cases (mean age 73.9 years (44 to 88), 14 female patients) and 17 typical periprosthetic fractures in patients on bisphosphonate therapy as controls (mean age 80.7 years (60 to 86, 13 female patients). Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of PAFF. Management and complications were recorded.

Results

Interobserver agreement for the PAFF classification was excellent (kappa = 0.944; p < 0.001). On univariate analysis compared with controls, patients with PAFFs had higher mean body mass indices (28.6 kg/m2 (sd 8.9) vs 21.5 kg/m2 (sd 3.3); p = 0.009), longer durations of bisphosphonate therapy (median 5.5 years (IQR 3.2 to 10.6) vs 2.4 years (IQR 1.0 to 6.4); p = 0.04), and were less likely to be on alendronate (50% vs 94%; p = 0.02) with an indication of secondary osteoporosis (19% vs 0%; p = 0.049). Duration of bisphosphonate therapy was an independent predictor of PAFF on multivariate analysis (R2 = 0.733; p = 0.05). Following primary fracture management, complication rates were higher in PAFFs (9/16, 56%) than controls (5/17, 29%; p = 0.178) with a relative risk of any complication following PAFF of 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 3.8) and of reoperation 2.56 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.2).

Conclusion

AFFs do occur in association with prostheses. Longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy is an independent predictor of PAFF. Complication rates are higher following PAFFs compared with typical PFFs, particularly of reoperation and infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1285–1291