Original Article

Split Viewer

Hip Pelvis 2024; 36(1): 62-69

Published online March 1, 2024

https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

© The Korean Hip Society

Treatment of Osteoporosis after Hip Fracture: Survey of the Korean Hip Society

Jung-Wee Park, MD , Je-Hyun Yoo, MD* , Young-Kyun Lee, MD , Jong-Seok Park, MD , Ye-Yeon Won, MD

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea*
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital Cheonan, Cheonan, Korea
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ajou University College of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

Correspondence to : Jong-Seok Park, MD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0225-0500
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital Cheonan, 31 Suncheonhyang 6-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31151, Korea
E-mail: jsparksch@schmc.ac.kr

Jung-Wee Park and Je-Hyun Yoo contributed equally to this study as co-first authors.

Received: May 17, 2023; Revised: July 10, 2023; Accepted: July 12, 2023

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Purpose: To assess current practice in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients who underwent treatment for hip fracture in South Korea.
Materials and Methods: A survey of 97 members of the Korean Hip Society, orthopedic hip surgeons who administer treatment for hip fractures in South Korea, was conducted. The survey was conducted for assessment of demographic data and perceptions regarding the management of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone treatment for hip fracture. Analysis of the data was performed using descriptive statistical methods.
Results: The majority of participants were between the age of 41 and 50 years, and 74% were practicing in tertiary hospitals. Testing for serum vitamin D levels (82%) was the most commonly performed laboratory test. Calcium and vitamin D were prescribed for more than 80% of patients by 47% and 52% of participants, respectively. Denosumab was the most commonly used first-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients. Bisphosphonate was most often perceived as the cause of atypical femoral fractures, and the most appropriate time for reoperation was postoperative 12 months. Teriparatide was most preferred after cessation of bisphosphonate and only prescribing calcium and vitamin D was most common in high-risk patients for prevention of atypical femoral fracture.
Conclusion: The results of this study that surveyed orthopedic hip surgeons showed that most participants followed the current strategy for management of osteoporosis. Because the end result of osteoporosis is a bone fracture, active involvement of orthopedic surgeons is important in treating this condition.

Keywords Osteoporosis, Hip fractures, Orthopedic surgeons, Drug therapy, Republic of Korea

Although treatment for osteoporosis is often administered in other sectors of medicine including endocrinology, geriatric, and gynecology, treatment of osteoporotic fractures is most often administered by orthopedic surgeons1). In particular, hip fracture, the most life-threatening osteoporotic fracture, is treated mainly by hip surgeons with surgery2). However, some studies have reported that medical treatment of osteoporosis is neglected by many orthopedic surgeons3-5). Prevention of second fracture is of utmost importance in patients who have suffered from previous osteoporotic fractures. The findings of a recent meta-analysis demonstrated the significant effect of osteoporotic medications on secondary prevention6). According to the previous prospective cohort study reported in 2007, the most common barrier in treatment of osteoporosis after hip fracture was a reluctance of patients7). This finding was probably related to the lack of awareness regarding the impact of osteoporosis on fragility fractures8).

Previously, limited media coverage of osteoporosis might have been related to a lack of awareness of the disease, its clinical implications following a low-energy trauma fracture, and the benefits of treatment for prevention of future fractures9,10). However, a growing body of literature and exposure in the media has led to a recent increase in awareness of osteoporosis and related fractures11-13). Orthopedic surgeons should attempt to expand their awareness of osteoporosis treatment, particularly for patients who have suffered from previous osteoporotic fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current practice in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone treatment for hip fracture in South Korea.

Members of the Korean Hip Society (KHS) are orthopedic hip surgeons involved in treatment of hip fractures in South Korea. A survey of members of KHS on the management of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone treatment for hip fracture was conducted. Among the 568 KHS members, 97 surgeons (17%) participated in this survey.

Survey questionnaires included basic demographic data on the surgeons. Age groups from 30 to over 60 years old were stratified. The levels of medical institutions where surgeons were practicing were categorized as tertiary hospitals (≥500 beds), general hospitals (100-500 beds), hospitals (30-100 beds), and clinics (≤30 beds). Surgeons were also asked whether they were involved in educating orthopedic residents. A short-answer question regarding the duration of treatment as an orthopedic surgeon was included.

The survey on the general treatment of osteoporosis in patients with hip fracture included the following items: routine laboratory tests for management of osteoporosis, the rate of prescribing calcium and vitamin D in hip fracture patients, the first-line treatment option for prevention of secondary fracture, whether to prescribe different medications for patients who experienced an osteoporotic fracture compared to osteoporotic patients without fractures, and management after cessation of denosumab for treatment of osteoporosis. Items related to perception of osteoporotic medications were as follows: the most important factor in the occurrence of atypical femoral fracture (AFF), the number of AFF patients encountered by each surgeon in a month, timing of determining the reoperation for delayed union after the index operation on complete AFF, management of osteoporosis after cessation of bisphosphonate in AFF patients, and management of osteoporosis during a drug holiday in patients who are susceptible to AFF.

All surveys were conducted through google forms and analysis and charting were performed using Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp.). Because this study was managed by the KHS, participation through email was encouraged. A descriptive statistical method was used for presentation of results.

The most common age range of the participants was 41 to 50 years (40%), followed by 31 to 40 years (24%), 51 to 60 years (24%), and over 61 years (12%). The most common type of medical institution where the surgeons are practicing was tertiary hospitals (74%), followed by general hospitals (21%), hospitals (4%), and clinics (1%). Involvement in education and training of orthopedic residents was reported by 86% of the participants. The mean duration of orthopedic treatment as a hip specialist was 15.3±9.8 years (range, 1-40 years).

The mean number of hip fracture surgeries per month was 10 to 20 cases for 41%, more than 20 cases for 39%, 5 to 10 cases for 12%, and less than five cases for 7%. The most common laboratory tests routinely performed in hip fracture patients were serum vitamin D level for 82% followed by carboxy-terminal telopeptide of collagen I (CTX) for 61% (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Laboratory tests performed in hip fracture patients. CTX: carboxy-terminal telopeptide of collagen I, PTH: parathyroid hormone, P1NP: procollagen type I N propeptide, U/A: urinalysis.

According to 52% of the responders, there was no difference in prescribing osteoporosis medications in patients with osteoporotic fracture compared to patients who have osteoporosis without fracture.

Regarding calcium supplementation, 47% of responders reported prescribing calcium in over 80% of patients with osteoporotic fracture, while 18% prescribed calcium in less than 20% of patients. Vitamin D was prescribed in over 80% of patients with osteoporotic fracture by 52% of the responders while 13% prescribed vitamin D in less than 20% of patients.

Denosumab was the most common first-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients for prevention of secondary fracture, followed by bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (PTH). None of the participants chose selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) as the first-line treatment (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. First-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients. BP: bisphosphonate, PTH: parathyroid hormone, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.

To prevent rebound phenomenon after cessation of denosumab, zoledronate was the most commonly preferred medication (53%) followed by only calcium and vitamin D (16%), PTH (14%), and SERM (9%) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Osteoporosis medication in patients with rebound phenomenon after cessation of denosumab. Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, PTH: parathyroid hormone, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.

The mean number of patients with AFF treated per month was 1.7 patients (range, 0-15 patients). Bisphosphonate was the most important reason for AFF, as reported by 78% of the hip surgeons, and the remaining 22% responded that femoral bowing was the most important factor. None of the participants answered that denosumab, obesity, and high activity level were the most important recognized factors for AFF (Fig. 4). Postoperative 12 months was reported as the timing to determine the necessity of reoperation in case of delayed union by 43%, while 21% reported six months and 19% reported nine months as the appropriate timing.

Fig. 4. The most important recognized factor for atypical femoral fracture.

Regarding the treatment strategy after cessation of bisphosphonate in patients with AFF, PTH was preferred as an osteoporosis medication by 78% of the responders (Fig. 5). For prevention of AFF in high-risk patients, prescription of only calcium and vitamin D was most common, as reported by 32% followed by SERM by 24%, PTH by 18%, and denosumab by 16% (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5. Preferred osteoporosis medications after cessation of bisphosphonate in patients with atypical femoral fracture. PTH: parathyroid hormone, Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.
Fig. 6. Preferred osteoporosis medications in patients with high-risk of atypical femoral fracture. Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator, PTH: parathyroid hormone.

Evaluating the current status in the perspective of clinicians is crucial in the effort to enhance the management of osteoporosis and prevent second fractures. In this survey, vitamin D test and denosumab were the most common laboratory test and the first-line osteoporosis medication, respectively. Zoledronate was used most often to prevent rebound phenomenon after cessation of denosumab. Use of bisphosphonate and femoral bowing were regarded as the main reasons for AFF. One year was most commonly determined as appropriate timing to consider reoperation in the case of delayed union after AFF. Calcium and vitamin D were most commonly preferred for prevention of AFF. After AFF, PTH was the most commonly preferred osteoporosis medication.

Blood tests for osteoporosis included complete blood counts, calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, creatinine, vitamin D, thyroid stimulating hormone, liver enzymes, PTH, and bone turnover markers including CTX, P1NP (procollagen type I N propeptide), NTX (N-telopeptide of type 1 collagen), DPD (deoxypyridinoline), and PYD (pyridinoline)14,15). Testing for vitamin D was the most commonly performed test in this study. In the form of serum 25-OH-D, vitamin D plays an essential role in maintaining the levels of calcium and PTH. A serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D test is currently recommended for patients who have osteoporosis and who might benefit from vitamin D replacement16). According to the National Osteoporosis Society (NOS), less than 30 nmol/L of 25-OH-D is deficient and 30-50 nmol/L may be insufficient in some patients8). Although the effectiveness of vitamin D as a tool for use in evaluation of osteoporosis has been widely accepted, vitamin D supplementation as a treatment is more controversial. The findings of a meta-analysis conducted by the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) demonstrated that supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D resulted in a 15% reduction in total fractures and a 30% reduction in hip fractures17). In contrast, some studies on the oral supplementation of vitamin D with or without calcium have reported no effect on bone mineral density (BMD) increase18,19) or fracture prevention regardless of the rise in serum vitamin D levels20,21). This may be related to aging-related declines of hepatic and renal function, which can affect hydroxylation of vitamin D22). In this regard, more potent vitamin D analogues, such as alfacalcidol, have been considered as an alternative to vitamin D in treatment of osteoporosis23).

In this study, denosumab was the most popular medication for the first-line treatment of osteoporosis. The 3-year FREEDOM trial, the most prominent study that led to the current popularity of denosumab, reported a substantial reduction of osteoporotic fractures in denosumab-treated patients24). Compared to bisphosphonates, BMD was further increased by denosumab at 12 months at all fracture sites with lower levels of bone turnover markers25). Although no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) or AFF were included in the FREEDOM trial24), two AFFs26) and 13 ONJ27) were identified in FREEDOM Extension. More importantly, the rebound increase of bone turnover markers and elevated risk of multiple vertebral fractures necessitated the awareness of rebound phenomenon after discontinuation of denosumab28,29). To avoid rebound phenomenon, zoledronate was used most often after cessation of denosumab in the current study. Administration of bisphosphonate has been an effective strategy in the effort to overcome rebound phenomenon30). However there is still a challenge in patients with renal insufficiency, AFF, or ONJ, which proscribe the use of potent bisphosphonates31). Conduct of more extensive studies on the rebound phenomenon of denosumab discontinuation is warranted.

AFF, which was introduced as a detrimental effect of long-term bisphosphonate treatment, is a challenging fracture due to the high rate of nonunion. The results of this study indicated that bisphosphonate (78%) and femoral bowing (22%) were the main causes of AFF. Many recent studies have reported on a relation between geometrical features of the femur and the occurrence and location of AFF. Severe anterolateral bowing of the femur is related to AFFs, and to diaphyseal AFFs in particular32-36). The reported effect of bisphosphonate in bone microstructure is a lower number of Haversion canals, larger osteon diameter, and a lower proportion of osteocyte lacunae37-39). While femoral bowing represents the mechanical factor of AFF as in stress fracture, long-term use of bisphosphonates represents the biological factor of AFF. In the study comparing 196 cases of AFF with 94 cases of typical proximal femur fractures by Lim et al.40), the adjusted odds ratios for bisphosphonate use, coronal femoral curvature, and sagittal femoral curvature in development of AFF were 25.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.74-61.28), 1.23 (95% CI 1.04-1.45), and 1.25 (95% CI 1.09-1.44), respectively. However, recent studies have suggested a close relation between femoral bowing and atypical fractures of the femoral shaft rather than atypical subtrochanteric fractures32,41). Specialized strategies for prevention of AFF should be implemented in patients with long-term bisphosphonate use or severe femoral bowing.

While intramedullary nailing of the femur continues to be the mainstay of treatment for complete and high-risk incomplete AFFs, there is still controversy regarding medical treatment42). According to general agreement, antiresorptive therapy should be discontinued following the diagnosis of AFFs43,44). Considering only AFFs and not the typical femoral fractures that can be prevented by treatment with bisphosphonates, simply ending bisphosphonate treatment would lead to a decrease in the annual risk of AFF by 70%45). In this study, along with discontinuing antiresorptives, 78% of hip surgeons preferred to use PTH as osteoporosis medication. This might be due to the fact that PTH is not only effective in enhancing BMD but also aids in union of AFF. Findings from a recent meta-analysis supported the use of PTH in treatment of AFF due to lower risk of nonunion and delayed union compared to the control group46). However, some studies have reported that sequential therapy consisting of alendronate followed by PTH is related to a temporary decline of hip BMD47,48). Therefore, caution is required when planning sequential therapy for patients who underwent long-term alendronate therapy prior to hip fracture.

Regarding prevention of AFF, calcium and vitamin D supplementation without prescription of osteoporotic medication was the most common option chosen in this survey. A drug holiday for bisphosphonates is currently widely accepted for the prevention of AFF49). During the drug holiday, regular follow-up with bone turnover markers or DXA (dualenergy X-ray absorptiometry) is sufficient for patients with a low risk of developing osteoporotic fractures. Switching antiresoprtives to anabolic agents is recommended for patients with a high risk of AFF along with thigh pain. Continuation of bisphosphonates with reassessment for the potential for administration of other treatments is recommended for patients with a relatively low risk of AFF but a high risk of osteoporotic fractures without stress reaction50). With the development of novel anabolic agents and accumulating evidence of their effects in AFF, it appears that the indications for use of anabolic agents as alternatives to bisphosphonates will increase in the future.

In this survey study, management of osteoporosis by orthopedic hip surgeons was largely in compliance with the current up-to-date management strategy. Because fracture is the final outcome of osteoporosis, orthopedic surgeons should be active participants in the treatment of osteoporosis.

This study was presented in the Fracture Symposium of the Korean Hip Society in November 2022.

Young-Kyun Lee has been an editorial board member since January 2023, but had no role in the decision to publish this article. No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

  1. Ahn SH, Park SM, Park SY, et al. Osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture fact sheet in Korea. J Bone Metab 2020;27:281-90. https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2020.27.4.281.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Oh YK, Moon NH, Shin WC. Management of osteoporosis medication after osteoporotic fracture. Hip Pelvis 2022;34:191-202. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2022.34.4.191.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Castel H, Bonneh DY, Sherf M, Liel Y. Awareness of osteoporosis and compliance with management guidelines in patients with newly diagnosed low-impact fractures. Osteoporos Int 2001;12:559-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170077.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Freedman KB, Kaplan FS, Bilker WB, Strom BL, Lowe RA. Treatment of osteoporosis: are physicians missing an opportunity?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:1063-70. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200008000-00001.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Gardner MJ, Flik KR, Mooar P, Lane JM. Improvement in the undertreatment of osteoporosis following hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84:1342-8. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200208000-00008.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Jin YZ, Lee JH, Xu B, Cho M. Effect of medications on prevention of secondary osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, non-vertebral fracture, and discontinuation due to adverse events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:399. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2769-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Kim SR, Ha YC, Park YG, Lee SR, Koo KH. Orthopedic surgeon's awareness can improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. J Korean Med Sci 2011;26:1501-7. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2011.26.11.1501.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Barker KL, Toye F, Lowe CJ. A qualitative systematic review of patients' experience of osteoporosis using meta-ethnography. Arch Osteoporos 2016;11:33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0286-z.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Edwards BJ, Iris M, Ferkel E, Feinglass J. Postmenopausal women with minimal trauma fractures are unapprised of the existence of low bone mass or osteoporosis. Maturitas 2006;53:260-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2005.05.008.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Feldstein AC, Schneider J, Smith DH, et al. Harnessing stakeholder perspectives to improve the care of osteoporosis after a fracture. Osteoporos Int 2008;19:1527-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0605-3.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Haaland DA, Cohen DR, Kennedy CC, Khalidi NA, Adachi JD, Papaioannou A. Closing the osteoporosis care gap: increased osteoporosis awareness among geriatrics and rehabilitation teams. BMC Geriatr 2009;9:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-9-28.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Oumer KS, Liu Y, Yu Q, Wu F, Yang S. Awareness of osteoporosis among 368 residents in China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21:197. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03217-1.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Silverstein WK, Zipursky JS, Shadowitz S. Closing the osteoporosis care gap: a teachable moment. JAMA Intern Med 2021;181:1635-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5972.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Bergmann P, Body JJ, Boonen S, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in the selection and monitoring of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis: a consensus document of the Belgian Bone Club. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:19-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01911.x.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Vasikaran S, Cooper C, Eastell R, et al. International Osteoporosis Foundation and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine position on bone marker standards in osteoporosis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1271-4. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.602.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Aspray TJ, Bowring C, Fraser W, et al. National Osteoporosis Society vitamin D guideline summary. Age Ageing 2014;43:592-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu093.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Weaver CM, Alexander DD, Boushey CJ, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and risk of fractures: an updated meta-analysis from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:367-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3386-5. Erratum in: Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:2643-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3699-z.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Avenell A. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on musculoskeletal health: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:847-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30265-1.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Smith LM, Gallagher JC, Kaufmann M, Jones G. Effect of increasing doses of vitamin D on bone mineral density and serum N-terminal telopeptide in elderly women: a randomized controlled trial. J Intern Med 2018;284:685-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12825.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Grant AM, Avenell A, Campbell MK, et al. Oral vitamin D3 and calcium for secondary prevention of low-trauma fractures in elderly people (Randomised Evaluation of Calcium Or vitamin D, RECORD): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005;365:1621-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63013-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Khaw KT, Stewart AW, Waayer D, et al. Effect of monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation on falls and non-vertebral fractures: secondary and post-hoc outcomes from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled ViDA trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:438-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30103-1.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Bordelon P, Ghetu MV, Langan RC. Recognition and management of vitamin D deficiency. Am Fam Physician 2009;80:841-6. Erratum in: Am Fam Physician. 2009;80:1357.
    Pubmed
  23. Ringe JD. Plain vitamin D or active vitamin D in the treatment of osteoporosis: where do we stand today?. Arch Osteoporos 2020;15:182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00842-0.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009;361:756-65. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0809493. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1914. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0809493.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Brown JP, Prince RL, Deal C, et al. Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on BMD and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial. J Bone Miner Res 2009;24:153-61. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.0809010.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Bone HG, Wagman RB, Brandi ML, et al. 10 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the phase 3 randomised FREEDOM trial and open-label extension. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:513-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30138-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Watts NB, Grbic JT, Binkley N, et al. Invasive oral procedures and events in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with denosumab for up to 10 years. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019;104:2443-52. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-01965.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Bone HG, Bolognese MA, Yuen CK, et al. Effects of denosumab treatment and discontinuation on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:972-80. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-1502.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Miller PD, Bolognese MA, Lewiecki EM, et al. Effect of denosumab on bone density and turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass after long-term continued, discontinued, and restarting of therapy: a randomized blinded phase 2 clinical trial. Bone 2008;43:222-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2008.04.007.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. McClung MR. Cancel the denosumab holiday. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:1677-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3553-3.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Kendler DL, Cosman F, Stad RK, Ferrari S. Denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis: 10 years later: a narrative review. Adv Ther 2022;39:58-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01936-y.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Chen LP, Chang TK, Huang TY, Kwok TG, Lu YC. The correlation between lateral bowing angle of the femur and the location of atypical femur fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 2014;95:240-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-014-9887-y.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Oh Y, Yamamoto K, Hashimoto J, et al. Biological activity is not suppressed in mid-shaft stress fracture of the bowed femoral shaft unlike in "typical" atypical subtrochanteric femoral fracture: a proposed theory of atypical femoral fracture subtypes. Bone 2020;137:115453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115453.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Park YC, Yoon SP, Yang KH. Localization of atypical femoral fracture on straight and bowed femurs. J Bone Metab 2019;26:123-31. https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2019.26.2.123.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  35. Soh HH, Chua IT, Kwek EB. Atypical fractures of the femur: effect of anterolateral bowing of the femur on fracture location. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015;135:1485-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2297-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Takakubo Y, Miyaji T, Ohta D, et al. Differences in subtrochanteric and diaphyseal atypical femoral fractures in a super-aging prefectural area: YamaCAFe Study. J Bone Miner Metab 2021;39:700-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-021-01215-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Bernhard A, Milovanovic P, Zimmermann EA, et al. Micro-morphological properties of osteons reveal changes in cortical bone stability during aging, osteoporosis, and bisphosphonate treatment in women. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:2671-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2374-x.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Milovanovic P, Zimmermann EA, Riedel C, et al. Multi-level characterization of human femoral cortices and their underlying osteocyte network reveal trends in quality of young, aged, osteoporotic and antiresorptive-treated bone. Biomaterials 2015;45:46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.12.024.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Zimmermann EA, Schaible E, Gludovatz B, et al. Intrinsic mechanical behavior of femoral cortical bone in young, osteoporotic and bisphosphonate-treated individuals in low- and high energy fracture conditions. Sci Rep 2016;6:21072. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21072.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. Lim SJ, Yeo I, Yoon PW, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and fracture healing of atypical femoral fractures: a multicenter case-control study. Osteoporos Int 2018;29:2427-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4640-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Hyodo K, Nishino T, Kamada H, Nozawa D, Mishima H, Yamazaki M. Location of fractures and the characteristics of patients with atypical femoral fractures: analyses of 38 Japanese cases. J Bone Miner Metab 2017;35:209-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-016-0747-x.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Schneider PS, Wall M, Brown JP, Cheung AM, Harvey EJ, Morin SN. Atypical femur fractures: a survey of current practices in orthopedic surgery. Osteoporos Int 2017;28:3271-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4155-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  43. Shane E, Burr D, Abrahamsen B, 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;29:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1998.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Shane E, Burr D, Ebeling PR, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25:2267-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.253. Erratum in: J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:1987.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Schilcher J, Michaëlsson K, Aspenberg P. Bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures of the femoral shaft. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1728-37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1010650. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1551. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2012;367:582.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Byun SE, Lee KJ, Shin WC, Moon NH, Kim CH. The effect of teriparatide on fracture healing after atypical femoral fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2023;34:1323-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-023-06768-w.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Langdahl BL, Libanati C, Crittenden DB, et al. Romosozumab (sclerostin monoclonal antibody) versus teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis transitioning from oral bisphosphonate therapy: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017;390:1585-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31613-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  48. Obermayer-Pietsch BM, Marin F, McCloskey EV, et al. Effects of two years of daily teriparatide treatment on BMD in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis with and without prior antiresorptive treatment. J Bone Miner Res 2008;23:1591-600. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.080506.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  49. Adler RA, El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Bauer DC, et al. Managing osteoporosis in patients on long-term bisphosphonate treatment: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res 2016;31:16-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2708. Erratum in: J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:1910. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2918.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  50. Dell R, Greene D. A proposal for an atypical femur fracture treatment and prevention clinical practice guideline. Osteoporos Int 2018;29:1277-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4506-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Hip Pelvis 2024; 36(1): 62-69

Published online March 1, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

Copyright © The Korean Hip Society.

Treatment of Osteoporosis after Hip Fracture: Survey of the Korean Hip Society

Jung-Wee Park, MD , Je-Hyun Yoo, MD* , Young-Kyun Lee, MD , Jong-Seok Park, MD , Ye-Yeon Won, MD

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea*
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital Cheonan, Cheonan, Korea
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ajou University College of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

Correspondence to:Jong-Seok Park, MD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0225-0500
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital Cheonan, 31 Suncheonhyang 6-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31151, Korea
E-mail: jsparksch@schmc.ac.kr

Jung-Wee Park and Je-Hyun Yoo contributed equally to this study as co-first authors.

Received: May 17, 2023; Revised: July 10, 2023; Accepted: July 12, 2023

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose: To assess current practice in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients who underwent treatment for hip fracture in South Korea.
Materials and Methods: A survey of 97 members of the Korean Hip Society, orthopedic hip surgeons who administer treatment for hip fractures in South Korea, was conducted. The survey was conducted for assessment of demographic data and perceptions regarding the management of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone treatment for hip fracture. Analysis of the data was performed using descriptive statistical methods.
Results: The majority of participants were between the age of 41 and 50 years, and 74% were practicing in tertiary hospitals. Testing for serum vitamin D levels (82%) was the most commonly performed laboratory test. Calcium and vitamin D were prescribed for more than 80% of patients by 47% and 52% of participants, respectively. Denosumab was the most commonly used first-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients. Bisphosphonate was most often perceived as the cause of atypical femoral fractures, and the most appropriate time for reoperation was postoperative 12 months. Teriparatide was most preferred after cessation of bisphosphonate and only prescribing calcium and vitamin D was most common in high-risk patients for prevention of atypical femoral fracture.
Conclusion: The results of this study that surveyed orthopedic hip surgeons showed that most participants followed the current strategy for management of osteoporosis. Because the end result of osteoporosis is a bone fracture, active involvement of orthopedic surgeons is important in treating this condition.

Keywords: Osteoporosis, Hip fractures, Orthopedic surgeons, Drug therapy, Republic of Korea

INTRODUCTION

Although treatment for osteoporosis is often administered in other sectors of medicine including endocrinology, geriatric, and gynecology, treatment of osteoporotic fractures is most often administered by orthopedic surgeons1). In particular, hip fracture, the most life-threatening osteoporotic fracture, is treated mainly by hip surgeons with surgery2). However, some studies have reported that medical treatment of osteoporosis is neglected by many orthopedic surgeons3-5). Prevention of second fracture is of utmost importance in patients who have suffered from previous osteoporotic fractures. The findings of a recent meta-analysis demonstrated the significant effect of osteoporotic medications on secondary prevention6). According to the previous prospective cohort study reported in 2007, the most common barrier in treatment of osteoporosis after hip fracture was a reluctance of patients7). This finding was probably related to the lack of awareness regarding the impact of osteoporosis on fragility fractures8).

Previously, limited media coverage of osteoporosis might have been related to a lack of awareness of the disease, its clinical implications following a low-energy trauma fracture, and the benefits of treatment for prevention of future fractures9,10). However, a growing body of literature and exposure in the media has led to a recent increase in awareness of osteoporosis and related fractures11-13). Orthopedic surgeons should attempt to expand their awareness of osteoporosis treatment, particularly for patients who have suffered from previous osteoporotic fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current practice in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone treatment for hip fracture in South Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Members of the Korean Hip Society (KHS) are orthopedic hip surgeons involved in treatment of hip fractures in South Korea. A survey of members of KHS on the management of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone treatment for hip fracture was conducted. Among the 568 KHS members, 97 surgeons (17%) participated in this survey.

Survey questionnaires included basic demographic data on the surgeons. Age groups from 30 to over 60 years old were stratified. The levels of medical institutions where surgeons were practicing were categorized as tertiary hospitals (≥500 beds), general hospitals (100-500 beds), hospitals (30-100 beds), and clinics (≤30 beds). Surgeons were also asked whether they were involved in educating orthopedic residents. A short-answer question regarding the duration of treatment as an orthopedic surgeon was included.

The survey on the general treatment of osteoporosis in patients with hip fracture included the following items: routine laboratory tests for management of osteoporosis, the rate of prescribing calcium and vitamin D in hip fracture patients, the first-line treatment option for prevention of secondary fracture, whether to prescribe different medications for patients who experienced an osteoporotic fracture compared to osteoporotic patients without fractures, and management after cessation of denosumab for treatment of osteoporosis. Items related to perception of osteoporotic medications were as follows: the most important factor in the occurrence of atypical femoral fracture (AFF), the number of AFF patients encountered by each surgeon in a month, timing of determining the reoperation for delayed union after the index operation on complete AFF, management of osteoporosis after cessation of bisphosphonate in AFF patients, and management of osteoporosis during a drug holiday in patients who are susceptible to AFF.

All surveys were conducted through google forms and analysis and charting were performed using Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp.). Because this study was managed by the KHS, participation through email was encouraged. A descriptive statistical method was used for presentation of results.

RESULTS

The most common age range of the participants was 41 to 50 years (40%), followed by 31 to 40 years (24%), 51 to 60 years (24%), and over 61 years (12%). The most common type of medical institution where the surgeons are practicing was tertiary hospitals (74%), followed by general hospitals (21%), hospitals (4%), and clinics (1%). Involvement in education and training of orthopedic residents was reported by 86% of the participants. The mean duration of orthopedic treatment as a hip specialist was 15.3±9.8 years (range, 1-40 years).

The mean number of hip fracture surgeries per month was 10 to 20 cases for 41%, more than 20 cases for 39%, 5 to 10 cases for 12%, and less than five cases for 7%. The most common laboratory tests routinely performed in hip fracture patients were serum vitamin D level for 82% followed by carboxy-terminal telopeptide of collagen I (CTX) for 61% (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Laboratory tests performed in hip fracture patients. CTX: carboxy-terminal telopeptide of collagen I, PTH: parathyroid hormone, P1NP: procollagen type I N propeptide, U/A: urinalysis.

According to 52% of the responders, there was no difference in prescribing osteoporosis medications in patients with osteoporotic fracture compared to patients who have osteoporosis without fracture.

Regarding calcium supplementation, 47% of responders reported prescribing calcium in over 80% of patients with osteoporotic fracture, while 18% prescribed calcium in less than 20% of patients. Vitamin D was prescribed in over 80% of patients with osteoporotic fracture by 52% of the responders while 13% prescribed vitamin D in less than 20% of patients.

Denosumab was the most common first-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients for prevention of secondary fracture, followed by bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (PTH). None of the participants chose selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) as the first-line treatment (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. First-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients. BP: bisphosphonate, PTH: parathyroid hormone, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.

To prevent rebound phenomenon after cessation of denosumab, zoledronate was the most commonly preferred medication (53%) followed by only calcium and vitamin D (16%), PTH (14%), and SERM (9%) (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Osteoporosis medication in patients with rebound phenomenon after cessation of denosumab. Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, PTH: parathyroid hormone, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.

The mean number of patients with AFF treated per month was 1.7 patients (range, 0-15 patients). Bisphosphonate was the most important reason for AFF, as reported by 78% of the hip surgeons, and the remaining 22% responded that femoral bowing was the most important factor. None of the participants answered that denosumab, obesity, and high activity level were the most important recognized factors for AFF (Fig. 4). Postoperative 12 months was reported as the timing to determine the necessity of reoperation in case of delayed union by 43%, while 21% reported six months and 19% reported nine months as the appropriate timing.

Figure 4. The most important recognized factor for atypical femoral fracture.

Regarding the treatment strategy after cessation of bisphosphonate in patients with AFF, PTH was preferred as an osteoporosis medication by 78% of the responders (Fig. 5). For prevention of AFF in high-risk patients, prescription of only calcium and vitamin D was most common, as reported by 32% followed by SERM by 24%, PTH by 18%, and denosumab by 16% (Fig. 6).

Figure 5. Preferred osteoporosis medications after cessation of bisphosphonate in patients with atypical femoral fracture. PTH: parathyroid hormone, Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.
Figure 6. Preferred osteoporosis medications in patients with high-risk of atypical femoral fracture. Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator, PTH: parathyroid hormone.

DISCUSSION

Evaluating the current status in the perspective of clinicians is crucial in the effort to enhance the management of osteoporosis and prevent second fractures. In this survey, vitamin D test and denosumab were the most common laboratory test and the first-line osteoporosis medication, respectively. Zoledronate was used most often to prevent rebound phenomenon after cessation of denosumab. Use of bisphosphonate and femoral bowing were regarded as the main reasons for AFF. One year was most commonly determined as appropriate timing to consider reoperation in the case of delayed union after AFF. Calcium and vitamin D were most commonly preferred for prevention of AFF. After AFF, PTH was the most commonly preferred osteoporosis medication.

Blood tests for osteoporosis included complete blood counts, calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, creatinine, vitamin D, thyroid stimulating hormone, liver enzymes, PTH, and bone turnover markers including CTX, P1NP (procollagen type I N propeptide), NTX (N-telopeptide of type 1 collagen), DPD (deoxypyridinoline), and PYD (pyridinoline)14,15). Testing for vitamin D was the most commonly performed test in this study. In the form of serum 25-OH-D, vitamin D plays an essential role in maintaining the levels of calcium and PTH. A serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D test is currently recommended for patients who have osteoporosis and who might benefit from vitamin D replacement16). According to the National Osteoporosis Society (NOS), less than 30 nmol/L of 25-OH-D is deficient and 30-50 nmol/L may be insufficient in some patients8). Although the effectiveness of vitamin D as a tool for use in evaluation of osteoporosis has been widely accepted, vitamin D supplementation as a treatment is more controversial. The findings of a meta-analysis conducted by the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) demonstrated that supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D resulted in a 15% reduction in total fractures and a 30% reduction in hip fractures17). In contrast, some studies on the oral supplementation of vitamin D with or without calcium have reported no effect on bone mineral density (BMD) increase18,19) or fracture prevention regardless of the rise in serum vitamin D levels20,21). This may be related to aging-related declines of hepatic and renal function, which can affect hydroxylation of vitamin D22). In this regard, more potent vitamin D analogues, such as alfacalcidol, have been considered as an alternative to vitamin D in treatment of osteoporosis23).

In this study, denosumab was the most popular medication for the first-line treatment of osteoporosis. The 3-year FREEDOM trial, the most prominent study that led to the current popularity of denosumab, reported a substantial reduction of osteoporotic fractures in denosumab-treated patients24). Compared to bisphosphonates, BMD was further increased by denosumab at 12 months at all fracture sites with lower levels of bone turnover markers25). Although no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) or AFF were included in the FREEDOM trial24), two AFFs26) and 13 ONJ27) were identified in FREEDOM Extension. More importantly, the rebound increase of bone turnover markers and elevated risk of multiple vertebral fractures necessitated the awareness of rebound phenomenon after discontinuation of denosumab28,29). To avoid rebound phenomenon, zoledronate was used most often after cessation of denosumab in the current study. Administration of bisphosphonate has been an effective strategy in the effort to overcome rebound phenomenon30). However there is still a challenge in patients with renal insufficiency, AFF, or ONJ, which proscribe the use of potent bisphosphonates31). Conduct of more extensive studies on the rebound phenomenon of denosumab discontinuation is warranted.

AFF, which was introduced as a detrimental effect of long-term bisphosphonate treatment, is a challenging fracture due to the high rate of nonunion. The results of this study indicated that bisphosphonate (78%) and femoral bowing (22%) were the main causes of AFF. Many recent studies have reported on a relation between geometrical features of the femur and the occurrence and location of AFF. Severe anterolateral bowing of the femur is related to AFFs, and to diaphyseal AFFs in particular32-36). The reported effect of bisphosphonate in bone microstructure is a lower number of Haversion canals, larger osteon diameter, and a lower proportion of osteocyte lacunae37-39). While femoral bowing represents the mechanical factor of AFF as in stress fracture, long-term use of bisphosphonates represents the biological factor of AFF. In the study comparing 196 cases of AFF with 94 cases of typical proximal femur fractures by Lim et al.40), the adjusted odds ratios for bisphosphonate use, coronal femoral curvature, and sagittal femoral curvature in development of AFF were 25.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.74-61.28), 1.23 (95% CI 1.04-1.45), and 1.25 (95% CI 1.09-1.44), respectively. However, recent studies have suggested a close relation between femoral bowing and atypical fractures of the femoral shaft rather than atypical subtrochanteric fractures32,41). Specialized strategies for prevention of AFF should be implemented in patients with long-term bisphosphonate use or severe femoral bowing.

While intramedullary nailing of the femur continues to be the mainstay of treatment for complete and high-risk incomplete AFFs, there is still controversy regarding medical treatment42). According to general agreement, antiresorptive therapy should be discontinued following the diagnosis of AFFs43,44). Considering only AFFs and not the typical femoral fractures that can be prevented by treatment with bisphosphonates, simply ending bisphosphonate treatment would lead to a decrease in the annual risk of AFF by 70%45). In this study, along with discontinuing antiresorptives, 78% of hip surgeons preferred to use PTH as osteoporosis medication. This might be due to the fact that PTH is not only effective in enhancing BMD but also aids in union of AFF. Findings from a recent meta-analysis supported the use of PTH in treatment of AFF due to lower risk of nonunion and delayed union compared to the control group46). However, some studies have reported that sequential therapy consisting of alendronate followed by PTH is related to a temporary decline of hip BMD47,48). Therefore, caution is required when planning sequential therapy for patients who underwent long-term alendronate therapy prior to hip fracture.

Regarding prevention of AFF, calcium and vitamin D supplementation without prescription of osteoporotic medication was the most common option chosen in this survey. A drug holiday for bisphosphonates is currently widely accepted for the prevention of AFF49). During the drug holiday, regular follow-up with bone turnover markers or DXA (dualenergy X-ray absorptiometry) is sufficient for patients with a low risk of developing osteoporotic fractures. Switching antiresoprtives to anabolic agents is recommended for patients with a high risk of AFF along with thigh pain. Continuation of bisphosphonates with reassessment for the potential for administration of other treatments is recommended for patients with a relatively low risk of AFF but a high risk of osteoporotic fractures without stress reaction50). With the development of novel anabolic agents and accumulating evidence of their effects in AFF, it appears that the indications for use of anabolic agents as alternatives to bisphosphonates will increase in the future.

CONCLUSION

In this survey study, management of osteoporosis by orthopedic hip surgeons was largely in compliance with the current up-to-date management strategy. Because fracture is the final outcome of osteoporosis, orthopedic surgeons should be active participants in the treatment of osteoporosis.

FUNDING

No funding to declare.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was presented in the Fracture Symposium of the Korean Hip Society in November 2022.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Young-Kyun Lee has been an editorial board member since January 2023, but had no role in the decision to publish this article. No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Laboratory tests performed in hip fracture patients. CTX: carboxy-terminal telopeptide of collagen I, PTH: parathyroid hormone, P1NP: procollagen type I N propeptide, U/A: urinalysis.
Hip & Pelvis 2024; 36: 62-69https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

Fig 2.

Figure 2.First-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients. BP: bisphosphonate, PTH: parathyroid hormone, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.
Hip & Pelvis 2024; 36: 62-69https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Osteoporosis medication in patients with rebound phenomenon after cessation of denosumab. Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, PTH: parathyroid hormone, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.
Hip & Pelvis 2024; 36: 62-69https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

Fig 4.

Figure 4.The most important recognized factor for atypical femoral fracture.
Hip & Pelvis 2024; 36: 62-69https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

Fig 5.

Figure 5.Preferred osteoporosis medications after cessation of bisphosphonate in patients with atypical femoral fracture. PTH: parathyroid hormone, Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator.
Hip & Pelvis 2024; 36: 62-69https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

Fig 6.

Figure 6.Preferred osteoporosis medications in patients with high-risk of atypical femoral fracture. Ca+Vit. D: calcium and vitamin D, SERM: selective estrogen receptor modulator, PTH: parathyroid hormone.
Hip & Pelvis 2024; 36: 62-69https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.62

References

  1. Ahn SH, Park SM, Park SY, et al. Osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture fact sheet in Korea. J Bone Metab 2020;27:281-90. https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2020.27.4.281.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Oh YK, Moon NH, Shin WC. Management of osteoporosis medication after osteoporotic fracture. Hip Pelvis 2022;34:191-202. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2022.34.4.191.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Castel H, Bonneh DY, Sherf M, Liel Y. Awareness of osteoporosis and compliance with management guidelines in patients with newly diagnosed low-impact fractures. Osteoporos Int 2001;12:559-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170077.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Freedman KB, Kaplan FS, Bilker WB, Strom BL, Lowe RA. Treatment of osteoporosis: are physicians missing an opportunity?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:1063-70. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200008000-00001.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Gardner MJ, Flik KR, Mooar P, Lane JM. Improvement in the undertreatment of osteoporosis following hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84:1342-8. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200208000-00008.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Jin YZ, Lee JH, Xu B, Cho M. Effect of medications on prevention of secondary osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, non-vertebral fracture, and discontinuation due to adverse events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:399. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2769-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Kim SR, Ha YC, Park YG, Lee SR, Koo KH. Orthopedic surgeon's awareness can improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. J Korean Med Sci 2011;26:1501-7. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2011.26.11.1501.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Barker KL, Toye F, Lowe CJ. A qualitative systematic review of patients' experience of osteoporosis using meta-ethnography. Arch Osteoporos 2016;11:33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0286-z.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Edwards BJ, Iris M, Ferkel E, Feinglass J. Postmenopausal women with minimal trauma fractures are unapprised of the existence of low bone mass or osteoporosis. Maturitas 2006;53:260-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2005.05.008.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Feldstein AC, Schneider J, Smith DH, et al. Harnessing stakeholder perspectives to improve the care of osteoporosis after a fracture. Osteoporos Int 2008;19:1527-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0605-3.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Haaland DA, Cohen DR, Kennedy CC, Khalidi NA, Adachi JD, Papaioannou A. Closing the osteoporosis care gap: increased osteoporosis awareness among geriatrics and rehabilitation teams. BMC Geriatr 2009;9:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-9-28.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Oumer KS, Liu Y, Yu Q, Wu F, Yang S. Awareness of osteoporosis among 368 residents in China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21:197. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03217-1.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Silverstein WK, Zipursky JS, Shadowitz S. Closing the osteoporosis care gap: a teachable moment. JAMA Intern Med 2021;181:1635-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5972.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Bergmann P, Body JJ, Boonen S, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in the selection and monitoring of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis: a consensus document of the Belgian Bone Club. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63:19-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01911.x.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Vasikaran S, Cooper C, Eastell R, et al. International Osteoporosis Foundation and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine position on bone marker standards in osteoporosis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1271-4. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.602.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Aspray TJ, Bowring C, Fraser W, et al. National Osteoporosis Society vitamin D guideline summary. Age Ageing 2014;43:592-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu093.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Weaver CM, Alexander DD, Boushey CJ, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and risk of fractures: an updated meta-analysis from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:367-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3386-5. Erratum in: Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:2643-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3699-z.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Avenell A. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on musculoskeletal health: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:847-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30265-1.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Smith LM, Gallagher JC, Kaufmann M, Jones G. Effect of increasing doses of vitamin D on bone mineral density and serum N-terminal telopeptide in elderly women: a randomized controlled trial. J Intern Med 2018;284:685-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12825.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Grant AM, Avenell A, Campbell MK, et al. Oral vitamin D3 and calcium for secondary prevention of low-trauma fractures in elderly people (Randomised Evaluation of Calcium Or vitamin D, RECORD): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005;365:1621-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63013-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Khaw KT, Stewart AW, Waayer D, et al. Effect of monthly high-dose vitamin D supplementation on falls and non-vertebral fractures: secondary and post-hoc outcomes from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled ViDA trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:438-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30103-1.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Bordelon P, Ghetu MV, Langan RC. Recognition and management of vitamin D deficiency. Am Fam Physician 2009;80:841-6. Erratum in: Am Fam Physician. 2009;80:1357.
    Pubmed
  23. Ringe JD. Plain vitamin D or active vitamin D in the treatment of osteoporosis: where do we stand today?. Arch Osteoporos 2020;15:182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00842-0.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009;361:756-65. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0809493. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1914. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0809493.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Brown JP, Prince RL, Deal C, et al. Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on BMD and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial. J Bone Miner Res 2009;24:153-61. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.0809010.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Bone HG, Wagman RB, Brandi ML, et al. 10 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the phase 3 randomised FREEDOM trial and open-label extension. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:513-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30138-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Watts NB, Grbic JT, Binkley N, et al. Invasive oral procedures and events in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with denosumab for up to 10 years. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019;104:2443-52. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-01965.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Bone HG, Bolognese MA, Yuen CK, et al. Effects of denosumab treatment and discontinuation on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:972-80. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-1502.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Miller PD, Bolognese MA, Lewiecki EM, et al. Effect of denosumab on bone density and turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass after long-term continued, discontinued, and restarting of therapy: a randomized blinded phase 2 clinical trial. Bone 2008;43:222-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2008.04.007.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. McClung MR. Cancel the denosumab holiday. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:1677-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3553-3.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Kendler DL, Cosman F, Stad RK, Ferrari S. Denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis: 10 years later: a narrative review. Adv Ther 2022;39:58-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01936-y.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Chen LP, Chang TK, Huang TY, Kwok TG, Lu YC. The correlation between lateral bowing angle of the femur and the location of atypical femur fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 2014;95:240-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-014-9887-y.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Oh Y, Yamamoto K, Hashimoto J, et al. Biological activity is not suppressed in mid-shaft stress fracture of the bowed femoral shaft unlike in "typical" atypical subtrochanteric femoral fracture: a proposed theory of atypical femoral fracture subtypes. Bone 2020;137:115453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115453.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. Park YC, Yoon SP, Yang KH. Localization of atypical femoral fracture on straight and bowed femurs. J Bone Metab 2019;26:123-31. https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2019.26.2.123.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  35. Soh HH, Chua IT, Kwek EB. Atypical fractures of the femur: effect of anterolateral bowing of the femur on fracture location. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015;135:1485-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2297-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Takakubo Y, Miyaji T, Ohta D, et al. Differences in subtrochanteric and diaphyseal atypical femoral fractures in a super-aging prefectural area: YamaCAFe Study. J Bone Miner Metab 2021;39:700-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-021-01215-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Bernhard A, Milovanovic P, Zimmermann EA, et al. Micro-morphological properties of osteons reveal changes in cortical bone stability during aging, osteoporosis, and bisphosphonate treatment in women. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:2671-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2374-x.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Milovanovic P, Zimmermann EA, Riedel C, et al. Multi-level characterization of human femoral cortices and their underlying osteocyte network reveal trends in quality of young, aged, osteoporotic and antiresorptive-treated bone. Biomaterials 2015;45:46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.12.024.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Zimmermann EA, Schaible E, Gludovatz B, et al. Intrinsic mechanical behavior of femoral cortical bone in young, osteoporotic and bisphosphonate-treated individuals in low- and high energy fracture conditions. Sci Rep 2016;6:21072. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21072.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. Lim SJ, Yeo I, Yoon PW, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and fracture healing of atypical femoral fractures: a multicenter case-control study. Osteoporos Int 2018;29:2427-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4640-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Hyodo K, Nishino T, Kamada H, Nozawa D, Mishima H, Yamazaki M. Location of fractures and the characteristics of patients with atypical femoral fractures: analyses of 38 Japanese cases. J Bone Miner Metab 2017;35:209-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-016-0747-x.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Schneider PS, Wall M, Brown JP, Cheung AM, Harvey EJ, Morin SN. Atypical femur fractures: a survey of current practices in orthopedic surgery. Osteoporos Int 2017;28:3271-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4155-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  43. Shane E, Burr D, Abrahamsen B, 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;29:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1998.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Shane E, Burr D, Ebeling PR, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25:2267-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.253. Erratum in: J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:1987.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Schilcher J, Michaëlsson K, Aspenberg P. Bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures of the femoral shaft. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1728-37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1010650. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1551. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2012;367:582.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Byun SE, Lee KJ, Shin WC, Moon NH, Kim CH. The effect of teriparatide on fracture healing after atypical femoral fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2023;34:1323-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-023-06768-w.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Langdahl BL, Libanati C, Crittenden DB, et al. Romosozumab (sclerostin monoclonal antibody) versus teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis transitioning from oral bisphosphonate therapy: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017;390:1585-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31613-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  48. Obermayer-Pietsch BM, Marin F, McCloskey EV, et al. Effects of two years of daily teriparatide treatment on BMD in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis with and without prior antiresorptive treatment. J Bone Miner Res 2008;23:1591-600. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.080506.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  49. Adler RA, El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Bauer DC, et al. Managing osteoporosis in patients on long-term bisphosphonate treatment: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res 2016;31:16-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2708. Erratum in: J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:1910. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2918.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  50. Dell R, Greene D. A proposal for an atypical femur fracture treatment and prevention clinical practice guideline. Osteoporos Int 2018;29:1277-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4506-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
H&P
Vol.36 No.1 Mar 01, 2024, pp. 1~75

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on

  • line

Related articles in H&P

Hip & Pelvis