Osteoporosis is a disease when bone mass and tissue is lost, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and increase susceptibility to develop fracture. The osteoporosis prevalence increases markedly with age, from 2% at 50 years to more than 25% at 80 years. 1. in women. The vast majority of distal radius fractures (DRFs) can be considered fragility fractures. The DRF is usually the first medical presentation of these fractures. With an aging population, all fracture clinics should have embedded screening for bone health and falls risk. DRF is the commonest type of fracture in perimenopausal women and is associated with an increased risk of later non-wrist fracture of up to one in five in the subsequent decade. 2. . According to the national guidelines in managing the fragility fractures of distal radius with regards the bone health review, we, as orthopedic surgeons, are responsible to detect the risky patients, refer them to the responsible team to perform the required investigations and offer the treatment. We reviewed our local database (E-trauma) all cases of fracture distal radius retrospectively during the period from 01/08/2019 to 29/09/2019. We included total of 45 patients who have been managed conservatively and followed up in fracture clinic. Our inclusion criteria was: women aged 65 years and over, men aged 75 years and over with risk factors, patients who are more than 50 years old and sustained low energy trauma whatever the sex is or any patient who has major risk factor (current or frequent recent use of oral or systemic glucocorticoids, untreated premature menopause or previous fragility fracture). We found that 96% of patients were 50 years old or more and 84% of the patients were females. 71% of patients were not referred to Osteoporosis clinic and 11% were already under the orthogeriatric care and 18% only were referred. Out of the 8 referred patients, 3 were referred on 1st appointment, 1 on the 3rd appointment, 1 on discharge from fracture clinic to GP again and 3 were without clear documentation of the time of referral. We concluded that we as trust are not compliant to the national guidelines with regards the osteoporosis review for the DRF as one of the first common presentations of fragility fractures. We also found that the reason for that is that there is no definitive clear pathway for the referral in our local guidelines. We recommended that the Osteoporosis clinic referral form needs to be available in the fracture clinic in an accessible place and needs to be filled by the doctor reviewing the patient in the fracture clinic in the 1st appointment. A liaison nurse also needs to ensure these forms have been filled and sent to the orthogeriatric team. Alternatively, we added a portal on our online database (e-trauma), therefore the patient who fulfils the criteria for bone health review should be referred to the orthogeriatric team to review

The treatment of chronic osteomyelitis often includes surgical debridement and filling the resultant void with antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate cement, bone grafts or bone substitutes. Recently, the use of bioactive glass to treat bone defects in infections has been reported in a limited series of patients. However, no direct comparison between this biomaterial and antibiotic-loaded bone substitute has been performed.

In this retrospective study, we compared the safety and efficacy of surgical debridement and local application of the bioactive glass S53P4 in a series of 27 patients affected by chronic osteomyelitis of the long bones (Group A) with two other series, treated respectively with an antibiotic-loaded hydroxyapatite and calcium sulphate compound (Group B; n = 27) or a mixture of tricalcium phosphate and an antibiotic-loaded demineralised bone matrix (Group C; n = 22). Systemic antibiotics were also used in all groups.

After comparable periods of follow-up, the control of infection was similar in the three groups. In particular, 25 out of 27 (92.6%) patients of Group A, 24 out of 27 (88.9%) in Group B and 19 out of 22 (86.3%) in Group C showed no infection recurrence at means of 21.8 (12 to 36), 22.1 (12 to 36) and 21.5 (12 to 36) months follow-up, respectively, while Group A showed a reduced wound complication rate.

Our results show that patients treated with a bioactive glass without local antibiotics achieved similar eradication of infection and less drainage than those treated with two different antibiotic-loaded calcium-based bone substitutes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:845–50.

The aim of our study was to investigate whether placing of the femoral component of a hip resurfacing in valgus protected against spontaneous fracture of the femoral neck.

We performed a hip resurfacing in 20 pairs of embalmed femora. The femoral component was implanted at the natural neck-shaft angle in the left femur and with a 10° valgus angle on the right. The bone mineral density of each femur was measured and CT was performed. Each femur was evaluated in a materials testing machine using increasing cyclical loads.

In specimens with good bone quality, the 10° valgus placement of the femoral component had a protective effect against fractures of the femoral neck. An adverse effect was detected in osteoporotic specimens.

When resurfacing the hip a valgus position of the femoral component should be achieved in order to prevent fracture of the femoral neck. Patient selection remains absolutely imperative. In borderline cases, measurement of bone mineral density may be indicated.