Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) poses a challenging complication for many patients undergoing arthroplasty, and the literature identifies numerous risk factors. A comprehensive understanding of the primary risk and protective factors for PJI is valuable for surgeons. This article aims to compile and summarize the key risk factors for PJI documented in the literature. Some risk factors are related to the nutritional status of patients, with obesity, weight loss, hypovitaminosis, and malnutrition being frequently reported. Pathologies affecting patients also contribute to PJI risk, including septic arthritis, hepatitis, diabetes, urinary tract infections, anemia, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, and dental pathologies. Unhealthy habits, such as tobacco and drug abuse, are significant factors. Previous corticosteroid injections may also play a role in infection development. A few protective factors are also reported in the literature (use of statins, preoperative decolonization, and preadmission skin preparation). The identification of risk factors and the implementation of evidence-based preoperative protocols are essential steps in reducing the incidence of PJI.

Proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are the most frequent type of bone injury among the elderly. In Italy alone, 906,111 hospital admissions for hip fractures were recorded between 2007 and 2017. Globally, due to the aging population, the number of cases is expected to rise to 21.3 million by 2050. In older individuals, fractures of the femoral neck are commonly managed with prosthetic implants. While hemiarthroplasty has long been the standard treatment, total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly favored for more active or functionally demanding patients. Among the surgical options, dual mobility THA (DM-THA) stands out for its potential to significantly reduce postoperative complications, particularly dislocations, when compared to both conventional THA and hemiarthroplasty. This study aimed to determine the most effective surgical strategy—dual mobility THA versus hemiarthroplasty—for managing femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. A thorough literature review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, focusing on the most recent and relevant publications. The findings highlight a consistent trend: patients treated with DM-THA generally experience better outcomes than those receiving hemiarthroplasty. Based on current evidence, DM-THA should be regarded as the preferred intervention for elderly individuals with femoral neck fractures, except in cases where severe comorbidities or anesthesia-related risks require a more conservative approach.

Proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are the most frequent bone fractures in elderly people. In Italy, from 2007 to 2017, there were 906,111 hospitalizations for hip fractures. These fractures are expected to reach up to 21.3 million globally by 2050 because of aging. Femoral neck fractures in elderly people are usually treated with protheses. Hemiarthroplasty has been the treatment of choice. However, high-demand patients require total hip replacement. A dual mobility cup is more powerful than total hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty and has less complications. We did a search of the literature about the best choice between a dual mobility cup and hemiarthroplasty in treatment of femur neck fracture. In this literature review, we found many works that show better results in patients treated with dual mobility total hip arthroplasty, compared to hemiarthroplasty. In elderly people femoral neck fractures, dual mobility total hemiarthroplasty should be the solution of choice except for cases with internal or anesthetic problems, which should have a less invasive intervention.

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.