Search

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common procedure in orthopeadic surgery. It has been estimated that the incidence of periprosthetic fractures after TKA ranged between 0.3 to 2.5%,but increases to 38% when considering revision TKA.Patient-related risk factors for TKA periprosthetic fracture (TKAPF) include osteoporosis, age, female gender, revision arthroplasty and osteolysis. The choice of the most appropriate fixation device of TKAPF is a matter of debate, considering that locking plates and retro-grade intramedullary are both associated with good outcomes in terms of fracture union and joint function. In case of prosthetic component instability, severe comminution or metaphyseal extension of the fracture that precludes fixation, failure of previous treatments, and severe malalign-ment of the TKA, revision TKA (RTKA) should be considered. Severe bone loss is another is-sue of concern, that might be addressed using both megaprosthesis or allograft-prosthesis composite. Considering the variability of the clinical scenario of TKAPF, a comprehensive approach based on both fracture fixation and/or revision arthroplashty is needed.

Hip fractures are severe conditions with a high morbidity and mortality, especially when the diagnosis is delayed, and if formulated over 30 days after the injury, is termed a ‘neglected femoral neck fracture’ (NFNF). Cerebral palsy (CP) is probably one of the major risk factors for NFNF in Western countries, mainly because of both cognitive and motor impairments. However, considering the high prevalence of fractures in these patients, the incidence of NFNF in this population is probably underestimated, and this condition might result in persistent hip or abdominal pain. Several techniques are available for the treatment of NFNF (i.e. muscle pedicle bone graft, fixation with fibular graft, valgisation osteotomy), but most of them could affect motor function. Motor function must be preserved for as long as possible, in order to enhance the quality of life of CP patients. After discussing published NFNF cases in CP patients and available treatment options, a practical approach is proposed to facilitate the orthopaedic surgeon to both early identify and appropriately manage these challenging fractures. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:58-64. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190019

The incidence of fragility fractures of the acetabulum (FFA) is constantly increasing. Generally, these fractures are related to a fall on the greater trochanter involving the anterior column. The management of FFA is extremely difficult considering both patients’ comorbidities and poor bone quality. Both non-operative and several operative treatment protocols are available, and the choice among them is still ambiguous. The proposed surgical techniques for FFA [namely open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), percutaneous fixation and total hip arthroplasty (THA)] are associated with a high complication rate. The treatment with the higher early mortality is the ORIF + THA, while the one with the lowest is the non-operative. However, at longer follow-up, this difference dreadfully change is becoming the opposite. Frequently ORIF, percutaneous fixation, and non-operative treatment need a subsequent re-operation through a THA. This latter could be extremely difficult, because of poor bone quality, acetabular mal union/non-union, bone gaps and hardware retention. However, the outcomes of each of the proposed treatment are mostly poor and controverted; therefore, a comprehensive patient evaluation and an accurate fracture description are required to appropriately manage acetabular fracture in the elderly.

Introduction The treatment of intracapsular femoral neck fractures (FNFs) in the elderly is usually based on hip replacement, both total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Recently, several tissue-sparing approaches for hip arthroplasty had been described with promising results in terms of hospitalization length, blood loss and dislocation rate. The aim of the present study was to compare the blood loss and the transfusion rate in a cohort of patients with FNF treated using an HA through both the SuperPath (SP) and the traditional posterolateral (PL) approaches. Materials and methods We retrospectively collected data from patients affected by FNFs between January 2018 and February 2020. All patients with intracapsular FNF treated with a single HA implant (Profemur L, MicroPort Orthopedics Inc., USA) via PL or SP approaches were included. Exclusion criteria were pathological fractures, polytrauma and preoperatively transfused patients. Results Thirty-five patients were included and analysed in the present study. 17 patients were classified in the SP group, and 18 in the PL one. The rate of antithrombotic therapy was higher in the SP group compared with the PL group [10 (58, 82%) vs 4 (22, 2%)]. While the two groups did not differ in terms of preoperative haemoglobin (Hb), 48 h postoperative Hb and Hb reduction, a significative difference was observed in terms of blood transfusion rate (1 SP vs 9 PL, p = 0.0072). Conclusions The SuperPath approach in patients with FNF under antithrombotic therapy assures lower transfusion rate, potentially reducing complication rates and improving patients' outcomes.

Introduction Long-term use of bisphosphonates (BPs) is associated with Atypical Femoral Fracture (AFF). Theoretically, periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) should be excluded from the diagnosis of AFF. However, recently several studies reported the occurrence of PPFs around a hip arthroplasty presenting features of an AFF. The present study describes the characteristics of Atypical Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture (APFF) and evaluates the effectiveness of their management through a PRISMA compliant systematic review of the published case reports and series. Materials and methods A literature search was performed using “periprosthetic fracture” and “atypical femoral fracture” as keywords. Patients demographics, drug use, clinical and imaging characteristics, stem fixation and classification, management strategies for APFF and patients’ outcomes, were also collected. Results The present review included and analysed 17 patients from 12 studies. All APFFs occurred in females with a mean age of 75.9 years of age (range 43–87). In 11 patients, APFFs occurred around an uncemented stem, and in 6 around a cemented stem. Ten fractures were incomplete, and 7 complete. Conservative management was effective in 4 of 10 patients with incomplete fracture, while all patients with complete fractures underwent open reduction and internal fixation. A fracture non-union was observed in 5 patients and further surgery was required. Discussions APFFs share several clinical and imaging characteristics with AFF. An appropriate and early diagnosis may allow to improve the outcome of these fractures, the management of which should be based on the same principles of that of AFFs. Conclusions Considering the low quality of published articles and the heterogeneity of the treatment used, a clear recommendation of the most appropriate treatment cannot be formulated.

Proximal humeral fractures (PHF) are the third most common non-vertebral fragility fractures after hip and distal radius. It still controversial which treatment might be more appropriate, and surgically treated outcomes depends also on an appropriate technique. In order to clarify surgical indications, tips and pitfall a narrative review was conducted. Pinning, external fixation, plating and internal fixators has each one its advantages and disadvantages. During the procedure an appropriate use of the fixation device and handling of the soft tissue might be associated with better outcomes. Calcar comminution, varus angulation, medial dislocation of the shaft, fracture-dislocation are factors that could lead to choose a replacement. Hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty are the most common prosthesis used in PHF. The restoration of humeral length and tuberosities might lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes and prosthesis survivorship.

Introduction. The fractures that occurred around trochanteric nails (perinail fractures, PNFs) are becoming a huge challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon. Although presenting some specific critical issues (i.e., patients’ outcomes and treatment strategies), these fractures are commonly described within peri-implant ones and their treatment was based on periprosthetic fracture recommendations. The knowledge gap about PNFs leads us to convene a research group with the aim to propose a specific classification system to guide the orthopaedic surgeon in the management of these fractures. Materials and Methods. A steering committee, identified by two Italian associations of orthopaedic surgeons, conducted a comprehensive literature review on PNFs to identify the unmet needs about this topic. Subsequently, a panel of experts was involved in a consensus meeting proposing a specific classification system and formulated treatment statements for PNFs. Results and Discussion. The research group considered four PNF main characteristics for the classification proposal: (1) fracture localization, (2) fracture morphology, (3) fracture fragmentation, and (3) healing status of the previous fracture. An alphanumeric code was included to identify each characteristic, allowing to describe up to 54 categories of PNFs, using a 3- to 4-digit code. The proposal of the consensus-based classification reporting the most relevant aspects for PNF treatment might be a useful tool to guide the orthopaedic surgeon in the appropriate management of these fractures.

Introduction:Long-term use of bisphosphonates (BPs) has been associated with a specific type of tensile side femoral stress fracture known as Atypical Femoral Fracture (AFF). Theoretically periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) should be excluded from the diagnosis of AFF. However, emerging evidence correlates prolonged BPs use with the occurrence of a type of PFF with an atypical pattern (atypical PFF, APFF). The aim of the present study is to report 3 cases of APFF treated at a single centre.Methods:Clinical and radiographic records of PFF that occurred between January 2016 and August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients meeting the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) criteria for definition of PFF were included. Management strategies for APFF and patient outcomes, including fracture healing and hip function (assessed by the Oxford Hip Score [OHS]) were collected.Results:3 patients in the study period were identified as APFF (1 incomplete, 2 complete). All patients were females with a mean age of 83.3 years. All patients were treated with lateral plating. The application of a contralateral strut allograft resulted in fracture healing in cases of complete fractures. Mean OHS at final follow-up was 34.3.Conclusions:Despite occurring around a hip stem like PFF, APFF had peculiar clinical and radiographic features, making them more similar to AFF. Therefore, the orthopaedic surgeon should also consider the natural history and healing problems associated with AFF prior in order to choose the most appropriate management for APFF.

Patellofemoral instability occurs commonly in young and active patients. A spectrum of clinical entities can be identified according to the Dejour classification [1]: objective patellar instability (OPI), potential patellar instability (PPI), and the painful patellar syndrome (PPS). OPI is defined by the observation of at least one patellar dislocation in patients with one or more predisposing factors for patellar instability: excessive patellar height, excessive tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance (TT-TG), vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) dysplasia, and trochlear dysplasia. The PPS group is characterized by anterior knee pain, subjective instability, and popping, with no objective evidence of patellar dislocation or predisposing factors. The PPI group is a mix of the previous two groups: symptoms like the painful patellar group with one or more predisposing factors but without evidence of patellar dislocation. This condition may evolve to a true objective instability. Generally, non-operative treatment is suggested as the first-line therapy in patients with PPI and PPS conditions, whereas surgery is indicated in case of OPI. Sometimes in patients with PPI surgery could be indicated in case of failure of conservative treatment. Several studies investigated the anatomy and biomechanics of the medial stabilizers of the patella [2–4]. The medial retinaculum (MR), formed by fibers of the deep transverse layers, consists of a strong fibrous structure formed by important ligaments: the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL), the medial patellotibial ligament (MPTL), and the medial patellomeniscal ligament (MPML). These ligaments offer a medial restraint to lateral patellar dislocation. Some authors [5] investigated the contribution of these structures to the patellar stabilization, proving that the role of passive stabilizers is more important than dynamic ones and this condition is more evident in case of patella alta or patellofemoral dysplasia. In patients with PPI or PPS, conservative treatment remains the first option, in absence of important predisposing factors for patellar instability. In these particular patients, in case of failure of the conservative approach for at least 6 months, medial reefing might be considered.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to report the clinical and functional results of a series of patients with early knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treated with the intra-articular injection of autologous adipose-derived stem cells (aASCs) plus arthroscopic debridement. The hypothesis was that protocol would significantly improve the clinical and functional outcomes in patients with early KOA. Methods: Fifty-two patients with early KOA, who received arthroscopic debridement followed by percutaneous injection of aASCs, were enrolled into the study and retrospectively analyzed with an average follow-up of 15.3 (range, 6 to 24) months. Patients were assessed through the IKS knee and function scores and VAS pain scale. Results: The mean IKS knee score improved from 37.4 (range, 14 to 79) points pre-operatively to 62.6 (range, 27 to 95) points at the latest follow-up (p < < 0.01). The mean IKS function score improved from 57.2 (range, 25 to 100) points pre-operatively to 83.0 (range, 35 to 100) points at the latest follow-up (p < < 0.01). The mean VAS score decreased from 8.5 (range, 3 to 10) pre-operatively to 5.1 (range, 0 to 8) at the latest follow-up (p < < 0.01). Additionally, patients with a pre-operative VAS score greater than 8 were found to show greater clinical and functional benefits compared with patients with VAS score lower than 8. Conclusions: The knee injection of aASCs associated to arthroscopic debridement increased significantly the clinical and functional scores in patients with early KOA at a mid-term follow-up, especially those with higher pre-operative VAS scores.