Background: The six Platinum group metal elements (PGEs) comprising Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Platinum, Iridium and Osmium are grouped together in the periodic table. Human activities are mostly responsible for releasing PGEs into the environment. This systematic review focused on three PGEs with the greatest anthropogenic use, including in vehicle catalytic converters: Platinum (Pt), Palladium (Pd), and Rhodium (Rh). Consequently, these represent the greatest contributors to environmental pollution. The current review of in vivo toxicological studies (mammalian models) and in vitro cell exposure studies examined the potential harmful effects of these metalloids to mammalians, and their possible toxicity to human health. Methods: We applied Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to conduct a comprehensive search and evaluation of records in the available literature published between 01/01/2009 and 01/15/2024 in four databases. PROSPERO code ID: CRD42024471558. Results concerning the health effects of PGEs were extracted from articles according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After screening the records for eligibility, 22 studies were included in the final analysis. Results: This systematic review revealed that airborne PGEs significantly increased the activation of pathologic pathways in several human organs and/or perturbed various metabolic pathways. In view of the known pro-inflammatory and organ-degenerative effects of PGEs, the paucity of studies on the effect of PGEs on the central nervous system and on possible correlations with neurodegenerative diseases were particularly evident. Conclusions: The clinical complexity and chronic nature of PGE-related pathologies indicate that targeted research is essential. In light of the increasing incidence of non-communicable diseases, particular attention should be paid to the design of epidemiological studies and to environmental monitoring services.

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.