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.

Background: Robotic assistance and personalized alignment may alter operating work-flow and outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared conventional me-chanically aligned TKA and CORI-assisted personalized TKA across two centres. Methods: The study includes 240 patients (120 per strategy) with repeated Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Score (KSS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) values through 12 months, operative phases and individual satisfaction responses. Exploratory one-year contrasts used Welch tests and Holm adjustment for four score outcomes. Results: Mean surgical time was 70.9 ± 7.9 versus 68.9 ± 7.7 min (difference 2.03, 95% CI 0.05–4.02; p = 0.044). At 12 months, OKS was 40.9 ± 2.7 versus 41.3 ± 3.7 (p = 0.304); KSS objective 90.0 ± 0.0 versus 88.7 ± 4.5 (p = 0.002); KSS Function 92.3 ± 4.0 versus 89.5 ± 5.5 (p < 0.001); and FJS-12 84.8 ± 0.4 versus 84.6 ± 0.7 (p = 0.0048). Satisfaction was reported by 99/120 (82.5%) versus 96/120 (80.0%) patients (Fisher p = 0.741). Conclusions: CORI-assisted personal-ized TKA was associated with modestly longer operative time and higher one-year KSS values. The FJS-12 mean difference was only 0.21 points, and OKS and satisfaction were similar. The observational design and nonrandom treatment selection do not isolate the contributions of robotic assistance and alignment philosophy.

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.