Periprosthetic femoral fracture is a severe complication of total hip arthroplasty. A previous review published in 2011 summarised the biomechanical studies regarding periprosthetic femoral fracture and its fixation techniques. Since then, there have been several commercially available fracture plates designed specifically for the treatment of these fractures. However, several clinical studies still report failure of fixation treatments used for these fractures. The current literature on biomechanical models of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation since 2010 to present is reviewed. The methodologies involved in the experimental and computational studies of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation are described and compared with particular focus on the recent developments. Several issues raised in the previous review paper have been addressed by current studies; such as validating computational results with experimental data. Current experimental studies are more sophisticated in design. Computational studies have been useful in studying fixation methods or conditions (such as bone healing) that are difficult to study in vivo or in vitro. However, a few issues still remain and are highlighted. The increased use of computational studies in investigating periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation techniques has proven valuable. Existing protocols for testing periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation need to be standardised in order to make more direct and conclusive comparisons between studies. A consensus on the 'optimum' treatment method for periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation needs to be achieved.

Purpose: Limited published data regarding the ROSA (Robotic Surgical Assistant) learning curve exist. This study evaluated the number of cases needed for an expert orthopaedic surgeon to master the ROSA system and match the operative time of robotic (raTKAs) and manual primary total knee arthroplasties (mTKAs). Methods: This retrospective comparative cohort study included two hundred patients with primary knee osteoarthritis. The study group consisted of an expert surgeon’s first 100 raTKAs. The control group included 100 patients that underwent mTKAs from the same surgeon during the same period. The consecutive cases in each group were divided into ten subgroups, each of 10 cases. The groups were comparable concerning age, sex, BMI and Kellgren–Lawrence classification. We compared each subgroup's operative time and complications in mTKA and raTKA groups. We performed a cumsum analysis to construct the ROSA learning curve. Results: The first non-significant difference between the mTKAs and raTKAs operative times was observed in the subgroup of 62 to 71 cases. Till then, the operative time has been significantly lower for the mTKA than the raTKA group. The following groups of tens analysis (8th, 9th and 10th) showed no operative time difference between groups. The learning curve analysis demonstrated that the surgeon switched to the mastering phase from case 73 onwards. The two groups had no complication rate differences. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that about 70 cases are necessary for a senior surgeon to balance operative time between mTKAs and raTKAs using the ROSA system.

Introduction: This systematic review aims to critically assess the literature comparative studies investigating collared and collarless Corail stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) to find differences in revision rates, radiographic and clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications between these two types of the same stem. Methods: Eligible studies were found by searching PubMed, Science Direct/Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from conception till May 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The investigation encompassed randomized controlled trials, case series, comparative, cohort, and observational studies that assessed at least one comparative outcome or complication between collared and collarless Corail stems. Results: Twelve comparative studies with 90,626 patients undergoing primary THA were included. There were 40,441 collared and 58,543 collarless stems. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 360 months. Our study demonstrated no significant difference in stem revision relative risk (RR = 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.23, 2.02; p = 0.49), number of radiolucent lines (RR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.06, 2.28; p = 0.29) and overall complication risk (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.22, 1.76; p = 0.37) between collared and collarless stems. The collared stems demonstrated significantly lesser subsidence (mean difference: 1.01 mm; 95% CI, −1.77, −0.25; p = 0.009) and risk of periprosthetic fractures (RR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.92; p = 0.03). Conclusion: The comparative studies between collared and collarless stem groups showed similar survival and overall complication rates and functional outcomes. The similar revision rates between groups make the impact of higher subsidence for collarless stems uncertain. The lower risk of periprosthetic fractures in the collared stems group must be clarified further but could be related to increased rotational stability.