Patellar sleeve fractures, though relatively rare, present unique challenges in diagnosis and management. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of patellar sleeve fractures, focusing on their epidemiology, clinical presentation, imaging, and management strategies. Epidemiologically, these fractures are uncommon, representing approximately 1% of all fractures in pediatric patients, yet they account for 50% of all patella fractures in this population. They predominantly affect adolescents, with a peak incidence around 12.7 years of age, and are more common in boys, occurring at a ratio of 3 to 5:1. Understanding these demographic patterns is crucial for early recognition and appropriate management. Clinically, patellar sleeve fractures typically present with the sudden onset of severe pain, often associated with explosive activities such as jumping. However, diagnosis can be challenging, particularly in cases with minimal displacement or where alternative muscle groups compensate for the injury. Differential diagnosis is essential, and clinicians should be vigilant for signs such as palpable gaps at the lower pole of the patella and patella alta. Imaging modalities play a vital role in diagnosis, with plain X-rays often revealing no bony damage. Ultrasonography may offer a cost-effective alternative, especially in cases where radiographic findings are inconclusive. Advanced imaging techniques such as MRI can assist in characterizing the extent of the injury and assessing for associated complications. Management strategies encompass a spectrum of approaches, ranging from conservative measures such as immobilization and physical therapy to surgical interventions, including open reduction and internal fixation or arthroscopic surgery. The choice of treatment depends on various factors, including the fracture pattern, displacement, patient age, activity level, and associated injuries. Despite advancements in diagnosis and treatment, the optimal management of patellar sleeve fractures remains a clinical challenge. Further research is warranted to elucidate optimal algorithms for diagnosis and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes and reducing the risk of long-term complications associated with this rare but clinically significant knee injury.

Objectives: Tibial shaft fractures (TSFs) represent the most common diaphyseal fractures in adults. The gold-standard treatment is intramedullary nailing. Recently, the suprapatellar technique has been increasingly adopted due to its ability to reduce complications associated with the infrapatellar approach. Currently, no clinical score for leg fractures comprehensively assesses the entire lower limb. Therefore, we reviewed the main lower-limb scores available in the literature and developed a new clinical evaluation tool for tibial shaft fractures. The aim of our study was to report our experience with both techniques, to compare the outcomes of our prospective study with the international literature, and to propose a new, easy-to-apply, and reproducible clinical score that evaluates the specific functions of the entire lower limb. Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis of 920 tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing via either a suprapatellar or infrapatellar approach. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A, including 420 patients treated with the infrapatellar approach; Group B, including 500 patients treated with the suprapatellar approach. Follow-up included clinical and radiographic assessments at 1, 3, and 6 months, and annually thereafter. We evaluated differences in patient positioning, operation time, radiation exposure, healing rate, incidence of pseudarthrosis and infection, return to ambulation, residual knee pain and fracture site, persistent lameness, and deformities. For the clinical assessment, we devised a new score—the Catania Hospital Score (CHS)—by integrating the most relevant clinical items from existing lower-limb evaluation tools. The CHS includes anterior knee pain (20 points), lameness (5 points), swelling (10 points), stair-climbing ability (10 points), tibial pain (15 points), the ability to perform daily activities (20 points), and evaluation of deformities (varus/valgus, shortening, rotation, and recurvatum/procurvatum (40 points)), for a total of 120 points. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed in Group B regarding a shorter surgical time, a reduced patient positioning time, and decreased radiation exposure. The CHSs were significantly better for Group B at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. No statistically significant differences were found in infection or pseudarthrosis rates between the two groups. Notably, no cases of chronic knee pain were reported in patients treated with the suprapatellar approach. Conclusions: Both surgical approaches are valid and effective. However, our findings indicate that the suprapatellar approach reduces the complications of the infrapatellar technique, improves postoperative outcomes, and does not result in chronic knee pain. The CHS provides a comprehensive, practical, and reproducible tool to assess functional recovery in patients treated with intramedullary tibial nailing.

Ankle arthrodesis is a commonly used salvage procedure in the management of post-traumatic ankle fractures, which often result in severe disability and may require the amputation of the distal third of the leg. Successful ankle arthrodesis relies on a thorough assessment of local and systemic risk factors to ensure optimal results. Failure to accurately assess these factors may lead to unsatisfactory results. High-energy trauma causing bone defects and soft tissue necrosis often results in osteomyelitis, a condition that poses a significant threat to the success of the arthrodesis procedure. It is important to apply a standardised surgical protocol to minimise the possibility of superficial and deep infection and limit damage to the neighbouring soft tissues. Therefore, it is critical to undertake surgical lavage and debridement and administer systemic and local antibiotic therapy, along with the use of a spacer, to eradicate infection prior to performing arthrodesis. In this study, we present our experience in the recovery of limbs with post-traumatic complications via tibio-astragalic or tibio-calcaneal arthrodesis using a retrograde intramedullary nail technique. The approach involves a multi-step procedure using a previous antibiotic spacer implant and an autologous bone graft (RIA). This study spanned a period from January 2014 to December 2021 and included 35 patients (12 women and 23 men) with a mean age of 47.8 ± 20.08 years (range: 22–85 years). Among the patients, 18 had osteomyelitis following AO 43 C3 fractures, and 9 of them had previous exposure and bone loss at the time of injury. The remaining cases included 10 patients with AO 44 C fracture outcomes and 7 patients with AO 44 B fracture outcomes. Our results emphasise the importance of the meticulous management of local and systemic risk factors in ankle arthrodesis procedures. The successful eradication of infection and subsequent arthrodesis can be achieved via the implementation of surgical lavage, debridement, and systemic and local antibiotic therapy using spacers. This surgical protocol implemented by us has yielded excellent results, saving affected limbs from post-traumatic complications and avoiding the need for amputation. Our study contributes to the existing knowledge supporting the use of retrograde arthrodesis with intramedullary nails in severe cases where limb salvage is the primary goal. However, further research and long-term follow-up studies are needed to validate these results and evaluate the effectiveness of this technique in a larger patient population.

Background: Orthopedic implants are increasingly used in both trauma and reconstruc-tive surgery. Fractures occurring in the presence of implants are currently described with multiple terms (periprosthetic, peri-implant, hardware-related, implant-associated), lea-ding to inconsistent communication. Objective: To systematically review the existing terminology, quantify its heterogeneity, and evaluate the rationale for a unified umbrella concept. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (2000–2023) using predefined keywords. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies, reviews, or consensus papers that used or discussed terminology for fractures related to orthopedic implants. Data on terminology, anatomical site, and year of publication were extracted. A bibliometric frequency analysis was conducted. Results: Of 1,142 records screened, 184 met inclusion criteria. The terms “periprosthetic fracture” (68%), “implant-related fracture” (14%), “peri-implant fracture” (9%), and “hardware-related fracture” (7%) were most frequent, with substantial variation by ana-tomical site (hip: 52%, knee: 19%, shoulder: 11%, spine: 8%, trauma fixation devices: 10%). Historical consensus groups (AO/OTA, ISFR, ICS) have debated umbrella terms but re-jected them due to concerns about ambiguity. Discussion: Current terminology is fragmented, site-specific, and inconsistently applied. We propose the descriptive label “artificial fracture” to denote any fracture in which the biomechanics, morphology, or management are significantly influenced by the presence of an implant. This concept is intended as a transversal descriptor to complement, not re-place, existing classification systems. Conclusion: Standardized terminology may improve interdisciplinary communication, research comparability, and registry documentation. Future validation should include Delphi surveys, stakeholder engagement, and consensus endorsement.

Background: The global increase in orthopedic implant use—both for trauma fixation and arthroplasty—has profoundly transformed musculoskeletal surgery. As a consequence, fractures occurring in the presence of implants have become more frequent and clinically relevant. Yet, these injuries are currently described using highly heterogeneous terminology, including periprosthetic (fracture occurring in the presence of a prosthetic joint replacement) peri-implant (fracture occurring around an osteosynthesis or fixation device), implant-related, and hardware-related fractures (umbrella terms encompassing both prosthetic and fixation devices, used descriptively rather than classificatorily). This coexistence of multiple, context-specific terminologies hinders clinical communication, complicates registry documentation, and limits research comparability across orthopedic subspecialties. Because fractures occurring in the presence of orthopedic implants significantly alter load transfer, muscle force distribution, and musculoskeletal biomechanics, a clear and unified terminology is also relevant for muscle-focused research addressing implant–tissue interaction and functional recovery. Objective: This systematic review aimed to critically analyze the terminology used to describe fractures influenced by orthopedic implants, quantify the heterogeneity of current usage across anatomical regions and publication periods, and explore the rationale for adopting a unified umbrella term—“artificial fracture.” Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 2000 to December 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included clinical investigations, reviews, registry analyses, and consensus statements explicitly employing or discussing terminology related to implant-associated fractures. Data were extracted on publication characteristics, anatomical site, terminology employed, and classification systems used. Quantitative bibliometric and qualitative thematic analyses were conducted to assess frequency patterns and conceptual trends. Results: Of 1142 records identified, 184 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent descriptor in the literature was periprosthetic fracture (68%), reflecting its predominance in arthroplasty-focused studies, whereas broader and more practical terms such as implant-related and peri-implant fracture were more commonly used in musculoskeletal and fixation-related research. Terminological preferences varied according to anatomical site and implant type, and no universally accepted, cross-anatomical terminology was identified despite multiple consensus efforts. Discussion and Conclusions: The findings highlight persistent heterogeneity in terminology describing fractures influenced by orthopedic implants. A transversal, descriptive framework may facilitate communication across subspecialties and support registry-level harmonization. Beyond orthopedic traumatology, this approach may also benefit muscle and musculoskeletal research by enabling more consistent interpretation of data related to muscle–bone–implant interactions, rehabilitation strategies, and biomechanical adaptation.