Background: Long bones are commonly affected by musculoskeletal tumors, but they also represent one of the most frequent locations for metastases. The treatment is based on pain management and the prevention or stabilization of pathological fractures by intramedullary nailing. While titanium nails are probably the most used, carbon-fiber-reinforced (CFR) nails have emerged as a new option for oncological patients. The aim of this review is to compare titanium and CFR nails according to current findings. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards were followed: a total of 1004 articles were identified and 10 were included. Results: Traditionally, titanium implants are highly valued for their optimal biomechanical properties and ease of insertion, facilitated by their radiopacity. However, the use of titanium poses challenges in radiotherapy due to interference with radiation dosage and the creation of ferromagnetic artifacts. Conversely, CFR implants have emerged as a recommended option for intramedullary fixation, due to their biomechanical and structural properties and their benefits during radiotherapy and follow-up monitoring X-ray. Conclusions: CFR nailing represents a promising advancement in the surgical management of oncological patients with long bone metastases. However, further studies are needed to increase surgeons’ confidence in their use.

Introduction: Scoliosis is the most common type of congenital vertebral disease. This spinal disorder may be due to a failure of formation, segmentation, or a combination thereof. Complete failure of formation causes hemivertebra which can lead to unbalanced growth and deformation. Statistically, 25% of congenital curves do not evolve, 25% progress slightly, while the remaining 50% develop quickly and require treatment. Hemivertebrae can be divided into three types: non-segmented, semi-segmented, and fully-segmented. The fully-segmented types are most likely to progress. Hemivertebra in the thoracolumbar region shows higher rates of progression compared with those in the lumbar area. The treatment may be either conservative or surgical. In general, bracing is not recommended in short and rigid curves, although it may help process secondary curves.Objective: To assess the effectiveness of bracing in congenital scoliosis due to hemivertebra.Cases presentation: Searching in our database, we found three cases of patients with congenital scoliosis due to fully-segmented hemivertebra. The first of them was 6 years old at the time of diagnosis with a fully-segmented hemivertebra in L5, determining an L1-L5 (S1) lumbar curve. The second one was 10 years old at the time of diagnosis with a fully-segmented hemivertebra in L2 and a T11-L4 (L5 sacralized) thoracolumbar curve. The last one was 3 years old at the time of diagnosis with a fully-segmented hemivertebra in L3 (in six lumbar bodies), determining a thoracolumbar curve T12-L4.Results: We utilized a Milwaukee brace for the first patient, a Boston brace for the second patient, and a Progressive Action Short Brace (PASB) for the third patient. At the beginning of the treatment, the Cobb angles measured 23°, 53°, and 25°, respectively. During treatment, the Cobb angles measured 22°, 35°, and 15°, respectively. At the end of treatment, the Cobb angles measured 18°, 45°, and 12°, respectively. At long-term follow-up, the curves measured 20°, 45°, and 12° Cobb angles, respectively.Conclusions: Comparing our cases with those found in the literature we can confirm the ability of conservative treatment to change the natural history of congenital lumbar scoliosis due to failure of formation. From our experience, in all cases of CS with hemivertebra, before considering a surgical approach, conservative treatment should be implemented as early as possible without waiting for the progressive deformation of the adjacent normal vertebrae.

Background: Megaprosthetic replacement is widely used following tumour resection but remains challenged by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and variable functional outcomes. This narrative review aims to summarise current evidence on infection rates, prevention strategies, and functional outcomes following proximal humerus megaprosthetic reconstruction. We hypothesise that antibacterial coatings and improved soft-tissue techniques reduce infection rates and enhance functional recovery. Methods: A comprehensive narrative review of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed using the terms proximal humerus, shoulder, bone tumor, sarcoma, neoplasm, infection, megaprosthesis, and endoprosthetic replacement. Reference lists were screened manually. Case reports and series with fewer than five patients were excluded. Twenty-seven clinical studies (more than 1100 patients; mainly osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and metastatic lesions) were included and qualitatively analyzed. Results: The reported infection rates ranged from 4% to 20%, with higher risk in patients receiving adjuvant therapy. Silver-coated implants reduced PJI compared with uncoated designs (e.g., 11.2% → 9.2% in primary implants; 29.2% → 13.7% in revisions) without systemic toxicity. Alternative antibacterial coatings (e.g., silver- or copper-enriched hydroxyapatite) showed promising early results but remain supported by limited clinical data. Soft-tissue stabilization with Trevira tube or synthetic mesh improved joint stability and did not increase infection risk. Functional outcomes, usually assessed by MSTS or TESS, were moderate to good (≈60–80%) overall, with better scores when the deltoid and axillary nerve were preserved or when reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was possible. Conclusions: Proximal humerus megaprosthetic reconstruction benefits from meticulous soft-tissue handling, selective use of antibacterial technologies, and multidisciplinary management. The current literature is mainly retrospective, heterogeneous, and non-comparative. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to clarify the long-term effectiveness of silver or alternative coatings, soft-tissue reconstruction techniques, and emerging custom-made 3D-printed prostheses.

Background: Pathological fractures of the humerus secondary to metastatic disease represent a significant cause of pain, disability, and reduced quality of life in oncologic patients. Surgical management aims to restore stability, reduce pain, and allow early mobilization. However, the optimal strategy between intramedullary nailing and modular megaprosthesis remains debated, particularly in relation to functional outcomes and long-term results. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 48 patients treated for pathological or impending humeral fractures between January 2015 and January 2025. Twenty-six patients underwent intramedullary nailing (IMN group), while twenty-two were treated with tumor resection and modular megaprosthesis reconstruction (MP group). Functional outcomes were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) at 1, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months, and at 10 years. Complications and overall survival were also analyzed. Results: Intramedullary nailing demonstrated significantly superior early functional outcomes, with higher MSTS scores at 1 month (78% vs. 63%, p < 0.001) and lower QuickDASH scores in the first 24 months (p = 0.002). WOSI scores also favored IMN in the early postoperative period (p = 0.004). Megaprosthesis showed a slower initial recovery but a progressive improvement over time, reaching comparable functional outcomes at long-term follow-up (p > 0.05). The overall complication rate was similar between groups (p = 0.28), although periprosthetic infections occurred only in the MP group. Survival analysis did not show significant differences between groups (p = 0.74). Conclusions: Both intramedullary nailing and modular megaprosthesis represent effective surgical options for pathological and impending humeral fractures. Intramedullary nailing provides faster early functional recovery, whereas megaprosthetic reconstruction offers a durable reconstructive solution for extensive proximal lesions. Functional outcomes progressively converged between the two techniques approximately 2–3 years after surgery. Mid-term outcomes up to five years appeared comparable, suggesting that surgical decision-making should be individualized according to lesion characteristics, tumor biology, expected survival, and functional demands.