Abstract
Objective
To evaluate bilateral atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and to compare imaging features of paired fractures.
Materials and methods
Bilateral femoral imaging studies of 124 patients on bisphosphonate therapy with at least one AFF were retrospectively reviewed. Time between AFF diagnoses was determined. The following imaging features were evaluated for each AFF: fracture location, femoral angle, length of cortical thickening, medial spike location, fracture orientation, and comminution. Associations between imaging findings on pairs of bilateral AFFs were assessed with Spearman’s correlation (rs) and the Kappa statistic (κ).
Results
Bilateral AFFs were present in 78/124 (62.9 %) cases (3 men, 75 women; mean age 67.3 years). Average time between contralateral AFF diagnoses was 10.3 months. Contralateral AFFs were diagnosed within 12 months of the index fracture in 60/78 (76.9 %) cases and within 3 years in 69/78 (88.5 %) cases. There was a strong correlation between bilateral AFF locations (rs = 0.65), with 58/76 (76.3 %) occurring within a distance of <5 cm and 41/76 (53.9 %) within a distance of ≤2.5 cm. Bilateral AFF pairs had moderately correlated femoral angles (rs = 0.42), and weakly correlated lengths of cortical thickening (rs = 0.28). There was substantial agreement for medial spike location (κ = 0.68) and fracture orientation (κ = 0.64), and moderate agreement for lack of comminution (κ = 0.42). All findings were independent of time between AFF diagnoses.
Conclusions
Patients with unilateral atypical femoral fractures are likely to be diagnosed with a contralateral AFF within the first year of presentation. Bilateral AFFs commonly have similar imaging features, including location along the femur.
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00256-015-2212-7/MediaObjects/256_2015_2212_Fig1_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00256-015-2212-7/MediaObjects/256_2015_2212_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00256-015-2212-7/MediaObjects/256_2015_2212_Fig3_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00256-015-2212-7/MediaObjects/256_2015_2212_Fig4_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00256-015-2212-7/MediaObjects/256_2015_2212_Fig5_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention. Diagnosis and therapy. osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285(6):785–95.
Desai PA, Vyas PA, Lane JM. Atypical femoral fractures: a review of the literature. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2013;11(3):179–87.
Capeci CM, Tejwani NC. Bilateral low-energy simultaneous or sequential femoral fractures in patients on long-term alendronate therapy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(11):2556–61.
Schilcher J, Michaelsson K, Aspenberg P. Bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures of the femoral shaft. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1728–37.
Shane E, Burr D, Abrahamsen B, Adler RA, Brown TD, Cheung AM, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the american society for bone and mineral research. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(1):1–23.
Giusti A, Hamdy NA, Dekkers OM, Ramautar SR, Dijkstra SR, Papapoulos SE. Atypical fractures and bisphosphonate therapy: a cohort study of patients with femoral fracture with radiographic adjudication of fracture site and features. Bone. 2011;48(5):966–71.
Lo JC, Huang SY, Lee GA, Khandewal S, Provus J, Ettinger B, et al. Clinical correlates of atypical femoral fracture. Bone. 2012;51(1):181–4.
Khan AA, Leslie WD, Lentle B, Illes S, Kaiser SM, Frame H, et al. Atypical femoral fractures: a teaching perspective. Can Assoc Radiol J [Internet]. 2014 Jul 19 [cited 2015 Apr 15]. Available from: http://www.carjonline.org/article/S0846-5371%2814%2900007-2/abstract [Epub ahead of print].
Shane E, Burr D, Ebeling PR, Abrahamsen B, Adler RA, Brown TD, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of the task force of the american society for bone and mineral research. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25(11):2267–94.
Kwek EBK, Goh SK, Koh JS, Png MA, Howe TS. An emerging pattern of subtrochanteric stress fractures: a long-term complication of alendronate therapy? Injury. 2008;39(2):224–31.
Miyakoshi N, Aizawa T, Sasaki S, Ando S, Maekawa S, Aonuma H, et al. Healing of bisphosphonate-associated atypical femoral fractures in patients with osteoporosis: a comparison between treatments with and without teriparatide. J Bone Miner Metab [Internet]. 2014 Sep 17 [cited 2015 Apr 15]. Available from: http://springer.longhoe.net/article/10.1007%2Fs00774-014-0617-3 [Epub ahead of print].
Nieves JW, Bilezikian JP, Lane JM, Einhorn TA, Wang Y, Steinbuch M, et al. Fragility fractures of the hip and femur: incidence and patient characteristics. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21(3):399–408.
Boston DA. Bilateral fractures of the femoral neck. Injury. 1982;14(3):207–10.
Dretakis KE, Dretakis EK, Papakitsou EF, Psarkis S, Steriopoulos K. Possible predisposing factors for the second hip fracture. Calcif Tissue Int. 1998;62(4):366–9.
Mautalen CA, Vega EM, Einhorn TA. Are the etiologies of cervical and trochanteric hip fractures different? Bone. 1996;18(3):133S–7S.
Ferris BD, Kennedy C, Bhamra M, Muirhead-Allwood W. Morphology of the femur in proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1989;71(3):475–7.
Maffulli N, Dougall TW, Brown MT, Golden MH. Nutritional differences in patients with proximal femoral fractures. Age Ageing. 1999;28(5):458–62.
Acknowledgments
This study was not financially sponsored by any organization.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Probyn, L., Cheung, A.M., Lang, C. et al. Bilateral atypical femoral fractures: how much symmetry is there on imaging?. Skeletal Radiol 44, 1579–1584 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2212-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2212-7