Aims. Treatment guidelines for atypical femoral fractures associated
with bisphosphonates have not been established. We conducted a systematic
review of the treatment of atypical femoral fractures first, to
evaluate the outcomes of surgical fixation of complete atypical fractures
and secondly, to assess whether prophylactic surgery is necessary
for incomplete atypical fractures. Materials and Methods. Case reports and series were identified from the PubMed database
and were included if they described the treatment of atypical femoral
fractures. In total, 77 publications met our inclusion criteria
and 733 patients with 834 atypical complete or incomplete femoral fractures
were identified. Results. For complete fractures, internal fixation was predominantly achieved
by intramedullary nailing. The mean time to healing post-operatively
was 7.3 months (2 to 31). Revision surgery for nonunion or implant
failure was needed in 77 fractures (12.6%). A greater percentage
of fractures treated with plate fixation (31.3%) required revision
surgery than those treated with intramedullary nailing (12.9%) (p
<
0.01). Non-operative treatment of incomplete fractures failed and surgery
was eventually needed in nearly half of the patients (47%), whereas
prophylactic surgery was successful and achieved a 97% rate of healing. Conclusion. Intramedullary nailing is the first-line treatment for a complete
fracture, although the risk of delayed healing and revision surgery
seems to be higher than with a typical femoral fracture. Non-operative
treatment does not appear to be a reliable way of treating an incomplete
fracture: prophylactic intramedullary nailing should be considered
if the patient is in intractable pain. Radiographs of the opposite
side should be obtained routinely looking for an asymptomatic fracture.
Bisphosphonates must be discontinued but ongoing metabolic management
in the form of calcium and/or vitamin D supplements is advisable.
Teriparatide therapy can be considered as an
The British Orthopaedic Association has endorsed a website,
Orthopaedic surgery is in an exciting transitional period as modern surgical interventions, implants and scientific developments are providing new therapeutic options. As advances in basic science and technology improve our understanding of the pathology and repair of musculoskeletal tissue, traditional operations may be replaced by newer, less invasive procedures which are more appropriately targeted at the underlying pathophysiology. However, evidence-based practice will remain a basic requirement of care. Orthopaedic surgeons can and should remain at the forefront of the development of novel therapeutic interventions and their application. Progression of the potential of bench research into an improved array of orthopaedic treatments in an effective yet safe manner will require the development of a subgroup of specialists with extended training in research to play an important role in bridging the gap between laboratory science and clinical practice. International regulations regarding the introduction of new biological treatments will place an additional burden on the mechanisms of this translational process, and orthopaedic surgeons who are trained in science, surgery and the regulatory environment will be essential. Training and supporting individuals with these skills requires special consideration and discussion by the orthopaedic community. In this paper we review some traditional approaches to the integration of orthopaedic science and surgery, the therapeutic potential of current regenerative biomedical science for cartilage repair and ways in which we may develop surgeons with the skills required to translate scientific discovery into effective and properly assessed orthopaedic treatments.
