The Role of Surveillance in Predicting Fracture in Pediatric Patients With Incidentally Discovered Nonossifying Fibromas and Fibrous Cortical Defects: Is It Worth It?

Background: Nonossifying fibroma (NOF) and fibrous cortical defect (FCDs), the most common benign pediatric bone lesions, are usually incidental x-ray findings. Surveillance of characteristic lesions has been recommended to monitor for enlargement and assess fracture risk. However, no accepted fracture risk prediction guidelines exist, so indications for prophylactic surgery are unclear. The study’s purposes were to (1) characterize the timing of NOF/FCD-associated fractures, (2) quantify the resources devoted to surveillance, and (3) evaluate the potential for surveillance to prevent pathologic fracture. Methods: A single institution retrospective review was conducted to identify pediatric patients (below 18 y old) with clinical-radiographic documentation of an NOF or FCD diagnosis from 2012 to 2020. Patients who presented with fracture were tallied but excluded from the surveillance analysis. Patients without at least one follow-up visit were also excluded. Lesional radiographic features were characterized on initial imaging. The number of visits and imaging studies devoted to surveillance were tabulated. The number of fractures and prophylactic surgeries were recorded to quantify the potential of surveillance to prevent pathologic fractures. Results: The study population presenting without fracture consisted of 301 patients with 364 lesions with a mean follow-up of 20 months. By contrast, over the same period, 38 patients presented with NOF/FCD associated pathologic fractures. Surveillance included 1037 additional imaging tests over 1311 follow-up visits, or on average, 3.4 imaging studies and 4.4 visits per patient. During surveillance, only 2 (0.55%) lesions fractured. Another 10/364 (2.8%) patients underwent curettage and grafting, suggesting that—at best—the potential for preventing pathologic fracture by surveillance, assuming all 10 patients who underwent surgery would have subsequently fractured along with the 2 documented fractures, is 3.3% of lesions (12/364). Conclusions: The small number of fractures and surgeries during the follow-up period probably does not justify additional resources for surveillance beyond the initial visit, except in symptomatic patients with large lesions. However, subsequent visits may play a role in educating patients and their families regarding the natural history of these lesions. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II—retrospective study.