Benca Emir, Patsch Janina M, Mayr Winfried, Pahr Dieter H, Windhager Reinhard
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Department of Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Bone Rep. 2016 Mar 2;5:51-56. doi: 10.1016/j.bonr.2016.02.003. eCollection 2016 Dec.
Pathologic fractures in patients with bone metastases are a common problem in clinical orthopaedic routine. On one hand recognition of metastatic lesions, which are at a high risk of fracture, is essential for timely prophylactic fixation, while on the other hand patients with a low risk of pathologic fractures should be spared from overtreatment. The purpose of this review is to identify all methods for fracture risk evaluation in patients with femoral metastases in the literature and to evaluate their predictive values in clinical applications.
A MEDLINE database literature research was conducted in order to identify clinical scoring systems, conclusions from prospective and retrospective radiologic and/or clinical studies, as well as data from biomechanical experiments, numerical computational methods, and computer simulations.
The search identified 441 articles of which 18 articles met the inclusion criteria; 4 more articles were identified from citations of the primarily found studies. In principle there are two distinct methodologies, namely fracture risk prediction factors based on clinical and radiological data such as the most deployed the Mirels' score and fracture risk prediction based on engineering methods. Fracture risk prediction using Mirels' score, based on pure clinical data, shows a negative predictive value between 86 and 100%, but moderate to poor results in predicting non-impending fractures with a positive predictive value between 23 and 70%. Engineering methods provide a high accuracy (correlation coefficient between ex vivo and results from numerical calculations: 0.68 < r < 0.96) in biomechanical lab experiments, but have not been applied to clinical routine yet.
This review clearly points out a lack of adequate clinical methods for fracture risk prediction in patients with femoral metastases. Today's golden standard, the Mirels' score leads to an overtreatment. Whereas, engineering methods showed high potential but require a clinical validation. In future definition of patient-specific, quantitative risk factor based modelling methods could serve as useful decision support for individualized treatment strategies in patients with a metastatic lesion.
骨转移患者发生病理性骨折是临床骨科常见问题。一方面,识别有骨折高风险的转移病灶对于及时进行预防性固定至关重要,另一方面,应避免低病理性骨折风险患者接受过度治疗。本综述的目的是识别文献中所有用于评估股骨转移患者骨折风险的方法,并评估其在临床应用中的预测价值。
进行MEDLINE数据库文献检索,以识别临床评分系统、前瞻性和回顾性放射学及/或临床研究的结论,以及生物力学实验、数值计算方法和计算机模拟的数据。
检索到441篇文章,其中18篇符合纳入标准;从最初检索到的研究的参考文献中又识别出4篇文章。原则上有两种不同的方法,即基于临床和放射学数据的骨折风险预测因素,如最常用的Mirels评分,以及基于工程方法的骨折风险预测。基于纯临床数据使用Mirels评分进行骨折风险预测,其阴性预测值在86%至100%之间,但在预测非即将发生的骨折方面结果中等至较差,阳性预测值在23%至70%之间。工程方法在生物力学实验室实验中具有较高的准确性(体外实验与数值计算结果之间的相关系数:0.68 < r < 0.96),但尚未应用于临床常规。
本综述明确指出,在股骨转移患者中缺乏足够的临床骨折风险预测方法。当今的金标准Mirels评分会导致过度治疗。而工程方法显示出很大潜力,但需要临床验证。未来基于患者特异性、定量风险因素的建模方法的定义,可为转移性病变患者的个体化治疗策略提供有用的决策支持。