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.

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for poliomyelitis patients is controversial due to its higher complication rate compared with that of TKA for osteoarthritis. In this study we evaluated the results, at a minimum of 10 years, of a consecutive series of third-generation rotating hinge total knee arthroplasties (RHKs) in patients affected by poliomyelitis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 14 patients (15 TKA) performed between January 2000 and October 2021 that underwent a third-generation rotating hinge arthroplasty (Nex Gen RHK Zimmer). The clinical results using the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) were evaluated at an average follow-up of 154 months (min 120–max 216 months). Result: Of the 15 cases, 2 were lost at follow-up and 1 was excluded by the final evaluation due to infection. Of the remaining 12 cases at the final follow-up, the average AKKS clinical score improved from 30.08 points preoperatively, to 78.83 points postoperatively, while the average AKKS function score improved from 29.17 points to 56.25 points. We report only one intraoperative complication consisting of a femoral fracture at the tip of the stem, and a case of patellar fracture occurred 3 months after the index procedure. The presence of radiolucent lines was sporadic, while radiosclerotic lines were commonly visible around the stem extension, predominantly at the tip. Conclusions: The third generation of rotating hinge knee replacement has proved to be effective in polio patients, improving clinical and functional scores, and no cases of mechanical failure occurred.

Since their launch on the market in the late 1970s, Dual Mobility Cups (DMCs) have shown encouraging results both in terms of stability and of restoration of wide hip joint amplitude. Therefore, the use of DMCs is mainly indicated for patients at risk of dislocation, such as those with neuro-muscular diseases, femoral neck fractures, or complex situations like failed hip osteosynthesis, as well as being indicated in the setting of revisions.The objective of this review is to provide indications and recommendations for orthopedic surgeons using DMCs in complex primary and revision settings. An overview of the tech- nical and theoretical requirements necessary to achieve a successful DMC implantation is presented. According to the literature, indications have been expanded thanks to the constant improvement and development of materials and implants. Nowadays, the use of DMCs is no longer limited to revision surgery alone; on the contrary, increasingly complex cases may be approached. Long-term studies are needed before any formal conclusions can be drawn an before the promising results that have been obtained in difficult cases are consolidated.

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.

Humeral shaft fractures represent approximately 3% of all long-bone fractures and have historically been treated successfully in a non-operative way, but surgical management is indicated in several conditions. Although there are numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses that have attempted to guide surgeons, there is little evidence and no consensus as to the most suitable treatment. Every treatment has its advantages and its complications, and many factors must be considered: not only the features of the fracture, but also patient compliance and surgeon experience.

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.