Atypical fractures and molecular environment: What do we know?

Is there genetic susceptibility for atypical femoral fractures?

The mechanisms underlying AFF remain unclear, with hypotheses including bone turnover suppression and morphological variation. Recent studies have suggested a potential genetic susceptibility to AFF. A scoping review was conducted using PubMed to identify studies published since 2016. Twenty-one studies were identified, focusing on histological and genetic analysis of AFF patients and Bisphosphonates users. Biopsies and imaging modalities were used to assess histological and morphometric parameters, while genetic sequencing was performed to identify variants in target genes. Genetic studies identified variants in geranylgeranyl diphosphate synthase 1 (GGPS1) and CYP1A1 genes, which play roles in osteoclast function and drug metabolism, respectively. Functional analysis revealed reduced enzymatic activity in mutant variants of these genes, which could be further inhibited by BP use. Other genes, such as ATRAID, ALPL, and COL1A2, were also associated with AFF. Histomorphometric studies supported the hypothesis of bone turnover suppression in AFF, with alterations in tissue mechanical properties and microarchitecture observed, particularly in cortical bone. The findings suggest a potential genetic susceptibility to AFF, with variants in GGPS1 and CYP1A1 genes affecting osteoblast and osteoclast function. Bone turnover suppression and altered tissue properties contribute to the pathogenesis of AFF.

Evaluation and management of atypical femoral fractures: an update of current knowledge

Atypical femoral fractures are often attributed to the use of anti-resorptive medications such as bisphosphonates (BP). Whilst they have proven effects on fragility fracture prevention, clinical and laboratory evidence is evolving linking BP-related suppression of bone remodelling to the development of atypical stress-related sub-trochanteric fractures (Shane et al. in JBMR 29:1-23, 2014; Odvina et al. in JCEM 90:1294-301, 2005; Durchschlag et al. in JBMR 21(10):1581-1590, 2006; Donnelly et al. in JBMR 27:672-678, 2012; Mashiba et al. in Bone 28(5):524-531, 2001; Dell et al. in JBMR 27(12):2544-2550, 2012; Black et al. in Lancet 348:1535-1541, 1996; Black et al. in NEJM 356:1809-1822, 2007; Black et al. in JAMA 296:2927-2938, 2006; Schwartz et al. in JBMR 25:976-82, 2010). Injuries may present asymptomatically or with prodromal thigh pain and most can be successfully managed with cephalomedullary nailing and discontinuation of BP therapy. Such injuries exhibit a prolonged time to fracture union with high rates of non-union and metal-work failure when compared to typical subtrochanteric osteoporotic femoral fractures. Despite emerging literature on AFFs, their management continues to pose a challenge to the orthopaedic and extended multi-disciplinary team. The purpose of this review includes evaluation of the current evidence supporting the management of AFFs, clinical and radiological features associated with their presentation and a review of reported surgical strategies to treat and prevent these devastating injures.

Current concept of stress fractures with an additional category of atypical fractures: a perspective review with representative images

Stress fractures have traditionally been classified into three categories: fatigue fractures due to overuse of bone with normal elastic resistance; insufficiency fractures due to everyday physiological stress on fragile bone with poor elastic resistance; and pathologic fractures due to bone weakness involving tumors. The concept of atypical fractures has emerged and is considered a type of stress fracture. However, there has been some inconsistency in interpretation when using the traditional classification of stress fractures, and atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) can potentially be classified into subtypes: "typical" AFFs involving bone turnover suppression due to specific drugs (e.g. bisphosphonates) and fragility fractures of the bowed femoral shaft. In this article, the classification of stress fractures is redefined with the addition of atypical fractures as a fourth category, in which biological activity for fracture healing is absent, to promote consistent understanding and interpretation of clinical conditions involving stress fractures.

Biological activity is not suppressed in mid-shaft stress fracture of the bowed femoral shaft unlike in "typical" atypical subtrochanteric femoral fracture: A proposed theory of atypical femoral fracture subtypes

BACKGROUND

We have investigated mid-shaft stress fractures of the bowed femoral shaft (SBFs), well before the first report of an association between suppression of bone turnover and atypical femoral fractures (AFFs). Although all cases of SBF meet the criteria for AFF, SBFs can also occur in patients with no exposure to bone turnover suppression-related drugs (e.g., bisphosphonates). Using bone morphometry and biomechanical analyses, we devised a theory of AFF subtypes, dividing AFFs into fragility SBFs in the mid-shaft and "typical" subtrochanteric AFFs caused by suppressed bone turnover. The aim of this multicenter prospective study was to provide evidence for this novel concept in terms of biological activity.

METHODS

The study was conducted at 12 hospitals in Japan from 2015 through 2019. Thirty-seven elderly women with AFF were included and classified according to location of the fracture into a mid-shaft AFF group (n = 18) and a subtrochanteric AFF group (n = 19). Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were investigated to compare the two groups. The main focus was on histological analysis of the fracture site, and bone metabolism markers were evaluated to specifically estimate biological activity.

RESULTS

All patients in the subtrochanteric AFF group had a history of long-term (>3 years) exposure to specific drugs that have been reported to cause AFF, but 5 of the 18 patients in the mid-shaft AFF group had no history of exposure to such drugs. Femoral bowing was significantly greater in the mid-shaft AFF group (p < 0.001). In the histological analysis, active bone remodeling or endochondral ossification was observed in the mid-shaft AFF group, whereas no fracture repair-related biological activity was observed in the majority of patients in the subtrochanteric AFF group. Levels of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b and undercaroxylated osteocalcin were significantly lower in the subtrochanteric AFF group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The possibility of our devised AFF subtype theory was demonstrated. Biological activity tends not to be suppressed in mid-shaft SBFs unlike in "typical" subtrochanteric AFFs involving bone turnover suppression. Although validation of the proposed theory in other populations is needed, we suggest that the pathology and treatment of AFFs be reconsidered based on its subtype.

Nonunions of Bisphosphonate Fractures of the Femur: Presentation, Etiopathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Operative Treatment

Patients presenting with femoral fractures and long-term use of bisphosphonate treatment are at risk of developing a delayed union and/or nonunion as a result of the atypical metabolic activity prevailing at the fracture edges of the affected extremity. The treatment of these nonunions poses a serious challenge to orthopaedic surgeons worldwide and necessitates specialized techniques and materials to design a construct that will last a long period (greater than 6 months), while still allowing weight-bearing in this elderly population. Treatment options, timing of intervention, selection of implant, and the option of bone grafting are discussed to assist the clinician to make the right decisions in these complex clinical cases.