The objective of this article is to systematically review the currently available literature to formulate evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of femoral shaft nonunions for clinical practice and to establish recommendations for future research. Articles from PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trial Register, and EMBASE, that presented data concerning treatment of nonunions of femoral shaft fractures in adult humans, were included for data extraction and analysis. The search was restricted to articles from January 1970 to March 2011 written in the English, German, or Dutch languages. Articles containing data that were thought to have been presented previously were used once. Reports on nonunion after periprosthetic fractures, review articles, expert opinions, abstracts from scientific meetings, and case reports on 5 or fewer patients were excluded. The data that were extracted from the relevant articles included: type of nonunion, type of initial and secondary treatments, follow-up, union rate, and general complications. Most studies had different inclusion criteria and outcome measures, thus prohibiting a proper meta-analysis. Therefore, only the union rate and number of complications were compared between the different treatments. Methodological quality was assessed by assigning levels of evidence as previously defined by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. This systematic review provides evidence in favour of plating if a nail is the first treatment; after failed plate fixation, nailing has a 96 % union rate. After failed nailing, augmentative plating results in a 96 % union rate compared to 73 % in the exchange nailing group.

Background and purpose — Trochanteric fractures are often treated using intramedullary fixation. In our institution, the TFN-Advanced Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA) was introduced as replacement for the Gamma Trochanteric Nail (GTN3) for the treatment of these fractures as a result of a hospital-driven change of trauma implant supplier. We compared trochanteric fracture fixation failure rate between these 2 intramedullary nails. Patients and methods — All trochanteric fractures treated surgically from 2011 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for fixation failure. From 2016 only the TFNA was used. Fixation failure was defined as implant cut-out, implant breakage, non-union, malpositioning of the screw/blade requiring reoperation, new fracture around the nail, or miscellaneous. Propensity score matching was used to balance distribution of covariates and to compare failure rates between TFNA and GTN3 groups. Learning curve analyseswere performed. Results — After exclusion, 797 GTN3s (779 patients) and 542 (536 patients) TFNAs were available for analysis. A higher risk of fixation failure was found in the TFNA group (14%) compared with the GTN3 group (7.0%) (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–3.5). This was mainly attributed to a higher risk of cut-out (HR 2.2; CI 0.9–5.7), malpositioning (HR 4.7; CI 0.7–34), and new fracturearound the nail (HR 4.0; CI 1.0–16). Learning curve analyses indicated no clear learning curve effect. Interpretation — Failure of fixation increased after a switch from the GTN3 to the TFNA proximal femoral nail for the treatment of trochanteric fractures. Cut-out and malpositioning of the calcar screw or blade appeared to be the most dominant failure mechanisms. Modifications in implant design may have played a role in this increased risk of failure of fixation. In our institution a new implant device was introduced without solid clinical evidence behind it. This study may help to underline the need for medical doctors with acritical and scientific background to be involved in implant choices.

Next Section Background Eponymous terms are used frequently in daily patient care and scientific literature. They remind us of our predecessors in surgery. It is debatable whether eponymous terms are reliable in case of information transfer. The aim of our study was to investigate whether the original meaning of eponymous terms in shoulder and elbow surgery has been preserved in its use in contemporary literature. Objective To evaluate whether eponymous terms were used correctly, we analysed the use of frequently encountered eponymous terms from January to December 2014. Study selection By means of a PubMed search, articles with eponymous terms were identified and analysed for the way an eponymous term was used, and we compared it with the original description. The original description was traced back to the index publication. The use of the eponymous term was scored as similar, divergent or undefined. In the search for eponymous terms, we included those eponymous terms that were used more than 10 times in the English, German and Dutch literature of 2014. 6 eponymous terms were eligible for analysis: Bankart lesion, Bristow-Latarjet procedure, Essex-Lopresti injury of the forearm, Galeazzi fracture, Hill-Sachs lesion and Monteggia fracture. Findings We analysed 96 articles with the listed eponymous terms, of which 27 (28%) were scored divergent, 32 (33%) undefined and 37 (39%) similar. Bristow-Latarjet scored lowest, with 0% descriptions similar to the original, meaning that all articles had an undefined or divergent eponym, and Essex-Lopresti scored highest with 82% similarity. Conclusions Eponymous terms in shoulder and elbow trauma and surgery are used inadequately and inconsistently. The use of eponymous terms probably cannot be avoided, but since the majority of eponymous terms are not used properly and understanding of its meaning and content varies from surgeon to surgeon, we should be keen on explaining the meaning of eponymous terms when using them.