Search

Introduction: There is lack of consensus regarding best operative fixation strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around a stable stem. Evidence exists that some patterns of fracture around a stable stem are better treated with revision surgery than with standard fixation. Anyway, a more aggressive surgical procedure together with medical treatment could allow for stem retention, and reduced risk of nonunion/hardware failure, even in these cases., Significance: This paper is placed in a broader context of lack of studies on the matter, and its aim is to shed some light on the management of PFFs around a stable stem, when peculiar mechanical and biological aspects are present., Results: Based on our casuistry in the treatment of nonunions after PFF successfully treated with original stem retention, and on review of Literature about risk factors for fixation failure, an algorithm is proposed that can guide in choosing the ideal surgical technique even for first-time PFFs with a stable stem, without resorting to revision. Mechanical (major and minor) and biological (local and systemic) factors that may influence fracture healing, leading to nonunion and hardware failure, and subsequent need for re-operation, are considered. The proposed surgical technique consists of rigid fixation with absolute stability (using a plate and structural allograft) plus local biological support (structural allograft and autologous bone marrow concentrate over a platelet-rich plasma-based scaffold) at fracture site. Systemic anabolic treatment (Teriparatide) is also administered in the post-operative period., Conclusion: Mechanical factors are not the only issues to be considered when choosing the surgical approach to PFFs over a stable stem. Systemic and local biological conditions should be taken into account, as well. A therapeutic algorithm is proposed, given the prosthetic stem to be stable, considering mechanical and biological criteria., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Insulin allergy has been uncommon since the introduction of human recombinant insulin preparations; the prevalence is 2.4%. Insulin injection could elicit immediate reactions, which are usually induced by an IgE-mediated mechanism, within the first hour after drug administration. In the present study, we describe the case of a child who experienced immediate urticaria after long-acting insulin injection. A 9-year-old girl affected by type I diabetes mellitus referred a history of three episodes of urticaria 30 min after insulin subcutaneous injection. During the first week of insulin therapy, she developed generalized immediate urticaria twice after long-acting insulin glargine first and then once after insulin degludec administration. Symptoms resolved within a few hours after treatment with oral antihistamine. She tolerated rapid insulin lispro. Her personal allergological history was negative. Skin prick tests with degludec, glargine and detemir were performed, showing negative results. Intradermal 1:100000-diluted tests were immediately positive for both degludec and glargine but not for detemir. In light of these findings, detemir was administered without any reaction. Our results show that detemir is tolerated by patients with clinical hypersensitivity reactions to degludec and glargine. Although reactions could be attributable to additives allergy, such as zinc or metacresol, this was excluded since all three preparations contain the same components. So, insulin itself acted as offending allergen. Detemir differs from degludec and glargine in a few aminoacids. Therefore, it is possible that the conformational rather than the linear epitope may be responsible for the reaction. This result suggests integrating intradermal tests in the diagnostic flowchart for insulin allergy. Insulin allergy should always be suspected in patients with immediate symptoms after drug injection. As allergologic work-up, prick by prick test and intradermal test to insulin preparations should be performed. In case of negative results of cutaneous tests, insulin analogs may be administered.

A review of SLIT studies reveals that both cumulative dose and maintenance schedules have widely varied between the published clinical trials. Pre-co-seasonal treatment for pollen allergy seems to be better than coseasonal treatment. There is a number of studies evaluating different durations of SLIT, but the heterogeneity of the study design, allergen extracts and outcome measures make it difficult to produce a meta-analysis on SLIT efficacy according to duration. Overall,duration of both the build-up phase and the maintenance treatment does not seem to influence the effectiveness of SLIT. This suggests that the quality of the extract is more important in determining the clinical response to SLIT than duration of therapy. Further studies are warranted to establish optimal duration of SLIT treatment.