Aims. Treatment guidelines for atypical femoral fractures associated with bisphosphonates have not been established. We conducted a systematic review of the treatment of atypical femoral fractures first, to evaluate the outcomes of surgical fixation of complete atypical fractures and secondly, to assess whether prophylactic surgery is necessary for incomplete atypical fractures. Materials and Methods. Case reports and series were identified from the PubMed database and were included if they described the treatment of atypical femoral fractures. In total, 77 publications met our inclusion criteria and 733 patients with 834 atypical complete or incomplete femoral fractures were identified. Results. For complete fractures, internal fixation was predominantly achieved by intramedullary nailing. The mean time to healing post-operatively was 7.3 months (2 to 31). Revision surgery for nonunion or implant failure was needed in 77 fractures (12.6%). A greater percentage of fractures treated with plate fixation (31.3%) required revision surgery than those treated with intramedullary nailing (12.9%) (p < 0.01). Non-operative treatment of incomplete fractures failed and surgery was eventually needed in nearly half of the patients (47%), whereas prophylactic surgery was successful and achieved a 97% rate of healing. Conclusion. Intramedullary nailing is the first-line treatment for a complete fracture, although the risk of delayed healing and revision surgery seems to be higher than with a typical femoral fracture. Non-operative treatment does not appear to be a reliable way of treating an incomplete fracture: prophylactic intramedullary nailing should be considered if the patient is in intractable pain. Radiographs of the opposite side should be obtained routinely looking for an asymptomatic fracture. Bisphosphonates must be discontinued but ongoing metabolic management in the form of calcium and/or vitamin D supplements is advisable. Teriparatide therapy can be considered as an alternative treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:295–302

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

The MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) system is used increasingly in the management of early-onset scoliosis. Good results have been published, but there have been recent reports identifying implant failures that may be associated with significant metallosis surrounding the implants. This article aims to present the current knowledge regarding the performance of this implant, and the potential implications and strategies that may be employed to identify and limit any problems.

We urge surgeons to apply caution to patient and construct selection; engage in prospective patient registration using a spine registry; ensure close clinical monitoring until growth has ceased; and send all explanted MAGEC rods for independent analysis.

The MAGEC system may be a good instrumentation system for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. However, it is innovative and like all new technology, especially when deployed in a paediatric population, robust systems to assess long-term outcome are required to ensure that patient safety is maintained.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:708–13.

Fluoronavigation is an image-guided technology which uses intra-operative fluoroscopic images taken under a real-time tracking system and registration to guide surgical procedures. With the skeleton and the instrument registered, guidance under an optical tracking system is possible, allowing fixation of the fracture and insertion of an implant. This technology helps to minimise exposure to x-rays, providing multiplanar views for monitoring and accurate positioning of implants. It allows real-time interactive quantitative data for decision-making and expands the application of minimally invasive surgery. In orthopaedic trauma its use can be further enhanced by combining newer imaging technologies such as intra-operative three-dimensional fluoroscopy and optical image guidance, new advances in software for fracture reduction, and new tracking mechanisms using electromagnetic technology. The major obstacles for general and wider applications are the inability to track individual fracture fragments, no navigated real-time fracture reduction, and the lack of an objective assessment method for cost-effectiveness.

We believe that its application will go beyond the operating theatre and cover all aspects of patient management, from pre-operative planning to intra-operative guidance and postoperative rehabilitation.

This paper outlines the history of advances made in the treatment of open fractures that have occurred during wartime.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.