Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA.
J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Nov;32(11):2304-2314. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3221. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
Identification of atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) can be challenging. To assist in the radiological assessment, an American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) Task Force developed a case definition for AFFs in 2010, revising it in 2013. How the revised definition performs in a community setting compared with the 2010 definition is unknown. We applied the 2013 criteria to 372 femoral fractures that occurred between January 1, 1996, and June 30, 2009, employing two independent expert physician reviewers. We used radiographs that had been categorized in a previous study on the incidence of atypical fractures using 2010 ASMBR criteria (BEAK1). In this follow-up study (BEAK2), the same reviewers reviewed all previously identified femoral shaft fractures (FSFs) (n = 197) and distal femur fractures (n = 131) plus a 15% random sample of intertrochanteric fractures (n = 49). After initial review, agreement between the two reviewers ranged from 63% to 100% for specific features, and 84% of radiographs received the same overall classification. Fewer fractures met the 2013 compared with 2010 ASMBR case definition of AFFs (37 per 2013 criteria versus 74 per 2010 criteria). Forty-three radiographs (58%) categorized as AFFs according to 2010 criteria were no longer AFFs when 2013 criteria were applied, and an additional 12 non-atypical FSFs according to 2010 criteria were reclassified as AFFs according to 2013 criteria. The major cause of AFF reclassification was the change in the definition of transverse configuration. The modification of the comminution, non-traumatic, and periosteal/endosteal thickness criteria resulted in the reclassification of non-atypical FSFs to AFFs. Incidence rate of AFFs according to 2013 ASBMR criteria was lower overall during the 13 years of observation than when the 2010 ASBMR criteria were applied, although we saw a slight increase starting in 2000. As in BEAK1, we found that those with AFFs were younger, more often female, and had a higher exposure rate to bisphosphonates than those with non-atypical FSFs. As we continue to unravel the demographics of those who suffer from AFFs, our study adds information about how the change in criteria influences epidemiological work. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
非典型股骨骨折(AFFs)的识别具有一定挑战性。为了协助影像学评估,美国骨骼矿物质研究学会(ASBMR)一个工作组于 2010 年制定了 AFF 的病例定义,并于 2013 年对其进行了修订。修订后的定义在社区环境中的表现与 2010 年的定义相比如何尚不清楚。我们应用 2013 年的标准,对 1996 年 1 月 1 日至 2009 年 6 月 30 日期间发生的 372 例股骨骨折进行评估,由两位独立的资深医生进行评估。我们使用了之前使用 2010 年 ASMBR 标准(BEAK1)进行的非典型骨折发生率研究中的 X 射线照片(BEAK2)。在这项后续研究中,相同的两位评审员对所有之前确定的股骨骨干骨折(FSF)(n=197)和股骨远端骨折(n=131)以及 15%的随机样本转子间骨折(n=49)进行了回顾。初次评估后,两位评审员对特定特征的一致率在 63%到 100%之间,84%的 X 射线照片获得了相同的总体分类。与 2010 年 ASMBR AFF 病例定义相比,2013 年的标准符合 AFF 的病例更少(2013 年标准为 37 例,2010 年标准为 74 例)。根据 2010 年的标准,43 张 X 射线照片被归类为 AFF,但根据 2013 年的标准,这些 X 射线照片不再是 AFF,根据 2010 年的标准被归类为非典型 FSF 的另外 12 张 X 射线照片也被重新归类为 AFF。AFF 重新分类的主要原因是横向结构定义的改变。粉碎、非创伤性和骨膜/骨皮质厚度标准的修改导致非典型 FSF 根据 2013 年的标准重新分类为 AFF。根据 2013 年 ASBMR 标准,AFF 的发生率在整个 13 年的观察期间总体低于应用 2010 年 ASBMR 标准时,但从 2000 年开始略有上升。与 BEAK1 一样,我们发现 AFF 患者更年轻,女性更多,双膦酸盐暴露率高于非典型 FSF 患者。随着我们继续揭示 AFF 患者的人群特征,我们的研究增加了有关标准变化如何影响流行病学工作的信息。© 2017 美国骨骼矿物质研究学会。