Nonunion occurs in 2–10% of all forearm fractures due to different mechanical and biological factors, patient characteristics, and surgeon-dependent causes. It is a condition that causes functional and psychosocial disability for the patient because it is a unique anatomical segment in which all the bones and structures involved embody a complex functional unit; therefore, it is a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon. The ultimate goal of the care of these patients is the restoration of function and limitations related to impairment and disability. The aim of this review is to provide an extended description of nonunion forearm fractures, related risk factors, diagnosis, classification systems, and the available evidence for different types of treatment as a tool to better manage this pathology.

Background: The treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACF) is debated. This study compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIOS). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 70 patients with DIACF treated between January 2018 and September 2022, divided into ORIF (n = 50) and MIOS (n = 20) groups. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Maryland Foot Score (MFS) and the Creighton-Nebraska Health Foundation Assessment Scale (CNHFAS). Radiographic outcomes, complication rates, and reintervention rates were evaluated. A chi-square analysis examined the correlation between Sanders classification and treatment choice. Results: The chi-square analysis indicated no significant correlation between the complexity of the fracture and the type of treatment chosen (χ² = 0.175, p = 0.916). Additionally, the Cochran–Armitage test for trend showed no significant trend in the choice of treatment based on fracture complexity (statistic = 0.048, p = 0.826). A Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a longer time to reintervention for MIOS (p = 0.029). Complication rates were similar, with specific complications varying between groups. Quality-of-life outcomes were comparable. Conclusions: ORIF is preferable for high-demand patients due to better anatomical outcomes, while MIOS suits high-risk patients by reducing reinterventions and complications. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: The surgical approach to treating calcaneal fractures, specifically Sanders types II, III, and IV, is still a subject of controversy. The decision to opt for open reduction and internal fix-ation (ORIF) or minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIOS) remains uncertain owing to varying complication rates. This study intends to examine each treatment’s pros and cons in relation to the incidence of complications. Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined 70 patients treated between January 2018 and September 2022: 50 received ORIF, and 20 underwent MIOS. We evaluated functional outcomes with the Maryland Foot Score and the Creighton-Nebraska Health Foundation Assessment Scale (CNHFAS). We also assessed the amount of anatomical restoration using Böhler’s and Gissane’s angles, determined by radiographic checks, and the frequency of postoperative complications. Results: A significant reduction in the risk of reinter-vention was observed in patients with high anesthetic risks, polytraumatized individuals, and those with comorbidities who underwent MIOS. The chi-square test analysis of postoperative complications highlighted no substantial differences between the ORIF and MIOS groups in rela-tion to tendinitis, chronic pain and swelling, algodystrophy, and surgical wound infections (p > 0.20 for all). Conclusion: ORIF is more suitable for patients who have high motor function re-quirements, a long-term activity schedule and can endure potential additional procedures. This preference is because ORIF provides better anatomical restoration and features a lower osteoar-thritis occurrence rate.