Atypical Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Might be Considered a Distinct Subtype of Atypical Femoral Fracture: A Retrospective Study.

Objective: The exact relationship among atypical periprosthetic femoral fractures (APFFs), typical periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs), and atypical femur fractures (AFFs) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of APFFs among PFFs and to identify the clinical characteristics, management, and prognosis that distinguish APFFs from typical PFFs and AFFs to further determine the relationship among these three fracture types. Methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the clinical data of 117 consecutive patients who had PFFs after hip arthroplasty between January 2012 and December 2022 and further classified them into an APFF group and a typical PFF group according to the revised ASBMR diagnostic criteria for AFF. Moreover, patients who had subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures in the same period and met the diagnostic criteria for AFF were recruited and classified into the AFF group. Demographic information, minor features of AFF, comorbidities, history of medication usage, management, and complications were collected and compared among patients with typical PFFs, APFFs, and AFFs. Results: Eleven PFFs were identified as APFFs, and the prevalence of APFFs among PFFs was 9.4%. Significant differences were found in generalized increase in cortical thickness (p = 0.019), prodromal symptoms (p < 0.001), and the incidence of bilateral fractures (p = 0.010) among the groups, where the incidences of these minor features in the APFF group and the AFF group were higher than those in the typical PFF group. Of note, the duration of fracture healing of APFFs was significantly longer than that of typical PFFs and AFFs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). In addition, the APFF group and the AFF group had higher proportions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (p = 0.004 and p = 0.027, respectively), bisphosphonate (BP) usage (p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively), and longer duration of BP usage (p = 0.003 and p = 0.007, respectively) than the typical PFF group. Furthermore, significant differences were found in management (p < 0.001) and complication rate (p = 0.020) among the groups, and the rate of complications in the APFF group and the AFF group was higher than that in the typical PFF group. Conclusions: APFFs not only fulfilled the mandatory and major diagnostic criteria for AFF but also had many clinical characteristics, management and prognosis distinguishing them from typical PFFs but resembling AFFs; hence, the diagnostic criteria for AFF might be revised to incorporate APFF as a distinct subtype of the condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]