Background and Objectives: Osteoporosis is a prevalent skeletal disorder characterized by decreased bone mass and compromised bone microarchitecture, leading to an elevated risk of fractures and significant morbidity, particularly among aging populations. Early diagnosis and personalized management are critical to reducing fracture incidence and associated healthcare burdens. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have led to potential improvements in enhancing osteoporosis care by enabling accurate diagnostic imaging analysis, robust fracture risk prediction, and personalized therapeutic strategies. Materials and Methods: We performed a narrative review to summarize and critically evaluate the current literature on AI and ML applications in osteoporosis diagnosis and management. We searched relevant literature from inception to January 2025 to provide a comprehensive perspective, focusing on key themes, methodological approaches, and clinical implications. Results: Deep learning models, especially convolutional neural networks, facilitate rapid and accurate bone mineral density assessment from routine radiographs, expanding screening capabilities beyond conventional dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Machine learning algorithms harness clinical and demographic data to generate fracture risk models that often outperform traditional tools, enabling timely identification of high-risk individuals. Furthermore, AI-driven analyses of historical treatment responses coupled with real-time monitoring through wearable technologies and mobile applications allow for personalized therapeutic optimization and enhance patient engagement. Despite these promising advances, challenges remain regarding ethical considerations, data privacy, legal liability, incomplete model validation, lack of standardization, and the need for critical appraisal of real-world clinical efficacy for widespread clinical adoption. Conclusions: This narrative review indicates that AI and ML hold significant promise to revolutionize osteoporosis management by enabling early detection, precise risk stratification, and tailored interventions. However, the current evidence is heterogeneous, often lacking robust external validation and quantitative synthesis. Critical gaps include insufficient evaluation of model robustness across diverse populations, discussion of negative or conflicting results, and a comprehensive assessment of the limitations inherent in current AI evidence. Strategic efforts to validate, regulate, and critically integrate these technologies into routine clinical workflows are essential to realize their full potential and address the growing burden of osteoporosis worldwide.

Study design: Retrospective analysis of a single institution prospective, longitudinal database of spinal pyogenic infections. Diagnosis of pyogenic spondylodiscitis (PS) can be challenging. Although presenting symptoms are often non-specific, acute non-remitting axial back pain is the most striking feature. Nevertheless, several authors have reported on the uncommon occurrence of patients with PS without axial back pain. The aim of this study was to characterize presenting symptoms, causative agents, comorbidities, and treatment outcomes of patients presenting with painless pyogenic spondylodiscitis. A total of 214 patients diagnosed with PS were reviewed; patients were divided into two groups: patients presenting with no axial back pain (no pain group, n = 16), and patients presenting with axial back pain (control group, n = 198). Analyzed data comprised general demographics, presenting symptoms, comorbidities, spinal infection location, and amount of spinal involvement. While average age (62.4 vs. 65.0) and sex distribution was similar between the two groups, a significant diagnostic delay was noted in the control group (53 vs. 17 days, p < 0.001). Patients in the no pain group were more likely IV drug abusers or have had liver failure/cirrhosis. Anatomic distribution (i.e., cervical vs thoracolumbar) of the infection did not differ between the two groups, but a higher number of post-surgical infections was noted in the no pain group (37.5 vs. 15.6%, p = 0.026). E. coli and Pseudomonas spp. were more commonly seen in no pain group patients, and mortality was also higher in this group (12.5 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.004).

Background and Objectives: Individuals classified as having very high fracture risk remain vulnerable to imminent fractures even when treated with antiresorptive therapies. This meta-analysis evaluated whether initiating treatment with anabolic agents, including teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, provides superior fracture protection in this high-risk population. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted following PRISMA standards. Eligible studies included adults at very high fracture risk, defined by recent or multiple fragility fractures or markedly low bone mineral density, who received anabolic therapy as initial treatment compared with placebo or antiresorptive agents. Outcomes of interest were new vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and clinical fractures. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Results: Six randomized trials encompassing 17,872 participants were analyzed. Initiation with anabolic therapy was associated with a marked reduction in incident vertebral fractures. The labeled pooled summary estimate for vertebral fractures was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.34–0.54). Significant risk reductions were also observed for clinical fractures (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.51–0.75), non-vertebral fractures (pooled effect estimate 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.59–0.85), and hip fractures (risk ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.45–0.96). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested greater vertebral fracture protection versus placebo and persistent benefit versus active antiresorptive comparators. Sequential therapy using an anabolic agent followed by an antiresorptive reduced spinal fracture risk by approximately half. Considerable heterogeneity was noted for vertebral fracture outcomes. Conclusions: Starting osteoporosis treatment with anabolic agents results in faster and more-pronounced fracture risk reduction across all major fracture categories in patients at very high fracture risk. These findings support a shift toward anabolic-first treatment sequencing in this particularly vulnerable group.

Background: A previous short-term retrospective analysis from our center suggested early improvement in pain, function, and sleep outcomes after fixed-dose tramadol/paracetamol therapy in patients with early-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, the durability of these outcomes beyond the initial treatment phase remains insufficiently described in routine clinical practice. Objective: To describe short- and mid-term patient-reported outcomes and safety during extended follow-up in adults with symptomatic KOA treated with fixed-dose tramadol/paracetamol in routine outpatient care. Methods: This single-center retrospective observational extension study analyzed a fixed cohort of 30 adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and Kellgren–Lawrence grade I–II treated with fixed-dose tramadol/paracetamol in routine outpatient care. Patients were evaluated at baseline (T0), 15 days (D15), 3 months (M3), and 6 months (M6), where evaluable follow-up data were available. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included WOMAC total and subscale scores, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score, adverse events, and treatment discontinuation. Results: Patients had a mean age of 64.8 ± 9.6 years and a mean BMI of 27.3 ± 5.0 kg/m². NRS pain improved from a median of 6.0 (5.0–7.0) at baseline to 4.0 (2.0–5.3) at D15 and 3.0 (2.0–5.0) at both M3 and M6. WOMAC total score improved from 47.8 ± 12.8 at baseline to 35.6 ± 13.8 at D15, 33.8 ± 13.6 at M3, and 33.9 ± 13.5 at M6. Sleep score improved from 9.5 (7.0–15.0) at baseline to 7.0 (5.0–9.0) at D15 and remained improved at M3 and M6. Mild adverse events were reported in 10.0% of patients, and discontinuation occurred in 6.7%. Conclusions: In this small, uncontrolled, single-center retrospective cohort of adults with early-stage symptomatic KOA, fixed-dose tramadol/paracetamol was associated with early improvement in pain, WOMAC outcomes, and sleep, with group-level benefits remaining evident through 6 months. These findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than comparative evidence of effectiveness. Larger controlled studies are needed to confirm durability, comparative benefit, and long-term safety.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in people with overweight or obesity is clinically heterogeneous, reflecting mechanical loading, synovial and systemic inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, structural severity, and pain-related factors. We evaluated multidomain outcomes after semaglutide initiation and characterized clinically relevant response patterns. Methods: This retrospective, self-controlled cohort included 93 adults treated in routine rheumatology care; 88 completed a six-month follow-up. There was no untreated concurrent comparator; within-patient changes and exposure–outcome associations were therefore interpreted as non-causal. Changes in pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function, anthropometry, inflammatory markers, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), lipids, dose exposure, and safety were evaluated. Joint multivariable models included percentage weight loss and maximum achieved dose. Exploratory K-means phenotyping integrated dose, weight loss, body mass index (BMI) decrease, visual analog scale (VAS) and WOMAC improvement, and C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and HbA1c reductions, with candidate solutions and resampling stability examined. Results: At six months, mean weight decreased by 10.88 kg, VAS pain score by 2.47 points, WOMAC total by 22.50 points, CRP by 2.67 mg/L, ESR by 7.62 mm/h, and HbA1c by 0.51 percentage points (all p < 0.001). Weight loss remained independently associated with WOMAC improvement, while achieved dose retained positive adjusted associations with pain, function, inflammatory, and metabolic changes. Exploratory clustering identified five clinically interpretable patterns along a broader response-intensity gradient, including high-burden multidomain response, high-dose concordant response, dose-modified intermediate response, inflammation-preserved response despite moderate weight loss, and dose-limited graded response. These observational coefficients and clusters cannot distinguish treatment-related effects from residual confounding or co-interventions. Conclusions: Substantial within-patient improvements were observed, but the uncontrolled design precludes causal attribution. The exploratory patterns may be compatible with contributions from baseline disease burden, dose exposure, mechanical unloading, and residual inflammatory variation; they do not establish weight-independent pharmacologic effects or validated patient subtypes. Prospective controlled, multicenter validation is required.

Background: Within a timeframe of 8 years (2008-2016), 38 patients have undergone total hip replacement surgery for coxarthrosis or aseptic necrosis secondary to acetabulum fractures. Materials and Methods: The study included 27 males and 11 females between 42 and 70 years of age, all of whom came from other institutions. The follow-up period ranged between a minimum of 4.6 and a maximum of 9.7 years. Results: At the final follow-up, all patients were evaluated using the Merle D’Aubigne and Pastel model. Optimal results were found in all the cases. Three patients benefited from surgical revisitation with implant exchange following infection and one/two state reimplatation at seven, fourtheen et twenty-seven months respectively. Two patients benefited from cotyle revision due to chronic instability of the implant. Conclusions: The scope of the study was to present all the possible surgical difficulties that can come up with prosthetic implants. More particularly, hip implants after acetabulum fractures qualifies as a “difficult primary implant”.