Controversy remains as to whether the contralateral hip should be fixed in patients presenting with unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). This study compares the outcomes of those patients who had prophylactic fixation with those who did not. We identified 90 consecutive patients with a mean age of 12.3 years presenting to the study centre with SCFE from a prospective operative database. The patient's notes and radiographs were retrospectively analysed for post-operative complications, re-presentation with a contralateral slip, and the presence of a cam lesion. The mean length of follow-up was 8 years (range 3 to 13). Fifty patients (56%) underwent unilateral fixation and 40 patients underwent bilateral fixation, of which 4 (4%) patients had simultaneous bilateral SCFE and 36 (40%) had prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip. Twenty-three patients (46%) that underwent unilateral fixation, went onto have contralateral fixation for a further SCFE. Two patients from this group had symptomatic femoracetabular impingement from cam lesions and one patient required a Southwick osteotomy for a severe slip. Five patients (10%) that had unilateral fixation only demonstrated cam lesions on radiographic analysis, being suggestive of an asymptomatic slip. No post-operative complications were observed for the contralateral hip in patients that had prophylactic screw fixation and no cam lesions were identified on radiographic assessment. This study suggests that the contralateral hip in patients presenting with unilateral SCFE should be routinely offered prophylactic fixation to avoid a further slip, which may be severe, and the morbidity associated with a secondary cam lesion

Prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip in cases of unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) remains contentious. Our senior author reported a 10 year series in 2006 that identified a rate of subsequent contralateral slip of 25percnt; when prophylactic fixation was not performed. This led to a change in local practice and employment of prophylactic fixation as standard. We report the 10 year outcomes following this change in practice. A prospective study of all patients who presented with diagnosis of SCFE between 2004 and 2014 in our region. Intra-operative complication and post-operative complication were the primary outcomes. 31 patients presented during the study period: 16 male patients and 15 female patients. The mean age was 12.16 (8–16, SD 2.07). 25 patients had stable SCFE and 5 had unstable SCFE. Stability was uncertain in 1 patient. 25 patients had unilateral SCFE and 6 had bilateral SCFE. 24 patients who had unilateral SUFE had contralateral pinning performed. 1 unilateral SCFE did not have contralateral pinning performed as there was partial fusion of physis on contralateral side. In the hips fixed prophylactically there was 1 cases of transient intraoperative screw penetration into the joint and 1 case of minor wound dehiscence. There were no cases or chondrolysis or AVN. There were no further contralateral slips. This change in practice has been adopted with minimal complication. The fixation of the contralateral side is not without risk but by adopting this model the risk of subsequent slip has been reduced from 25percnt; to 0percnt;

There have been recent reports linking alendronate and a specific pattern of subtrochanteric insufficiency fracture. We performed a retrospective review of all subtrochanteric fractures admitted to our institution between 2001 and 2007. There were 20 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 12 of whom were on long-term alendronate. Alendronate-associated fractures tend to be bilateral (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.018), have unique radiological features (p < 0.0005), be associated radiologically with a pre-existing ellipsoid thickening of the lateral femoral cortex and are likely to be preceded by prodromal pain. Biomechanical investigations did not suggest overt metabolic bone disease. Only one patient on alendronate had osteoporosis prior to the start of therapy. We used these findings to develop a management protocol to optimise fracture healing. We also advocate careful surveillance in individuals at-risk, and present our experience with screening and prophylactic fixation in selected patients

Aims

Currently, periprosthetic fractures are excluded from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) definition of atypical femoral fracture (AFFs). This study aims to report on a series of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) that otherwise meet the criteria for AFFs. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures (PAFFs) and quantify the complications of treatment.

Objectives

Bisphosphonates are widely used as first-line treatment for primary and secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Whilst they have proved effective in this role, there is growing concern over their long-term use, with much evidence linking bisphosphonate-related suppression of bone remodelling to an increased risk of atypical subtrochanteric fractures of the femur (AFFs). The objective of this article is to review this evidence, while presenting the current available strategies for the management of AFFs.