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

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is frequently injured in elite athletes, with females up to eight times more likely to suffer an ACL tear than males. Biomechanical and hormonal factors have been thoroughly investigated; however, there remain unknown factors that need investigation. The mechanism of injury differs between males and females, and anatomical differences contribute significantly to the increased risk in females. Hormonal factors, both endogenous and exogenous, play a role in ACL laxity and may modify the risk of injury. However, data are still limited, and research involving oral contraceptives is potentially associated with methodological and ethical problems. Such characteristics can also influence the outcome after ACL reconstruction, with higher failure rates in females linked to a smaller diameter of the graft, especially in athletes aged < 21 years. The addition of a lateral extra-articular tenodesis can improve the outcomes after ACL reconstruction and reduce the risk of failure, and it should be routinely considered in young elite athletes. Sex-specific environmental differences can also contribute to the increased risk of injury, with more limited access to and availablility of advanced training facilities for female athletes. In addition, football kits are designed for male players, and increased attention should be focused on improving the quality of pitches, as female leagues usually play the day after male leagues. The kit, including boots, the length of studs, and the footballs themselves, should be tailored to the needs and body shapes of female athletes. Specific physiotherapy programmes and training protocols have yielded remarkable results in reducing the risk of injury, and these should be extended to school-age athletes. Finally, psychological factors should not be overlooked, with females’ greater fear of re-injury and lack of confidence in their knee compromising their return to sport after ACL injury. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors should be recognized and addressed to optimize the training programmes which are designed to prevent injury, and improve our understanding of these injuries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1033–1037.

The aim of this study was to determine whether the foundation programme for junior doctors, implemented across the United Kingdom in 2005, provides adequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. We recruited 112 doctors on completion of their foundation programme and assessed them using the Freedman and Bernstein musculoskeletal examination tool. Only 8.9% passed the assessment. Those with exposure to orthopaedics, with a career interest in orthopaedics, and who felt that they had gained adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine obtained significantly higher scores. Those interested in general practice as a career obtained significantly lower scores. Only 15% had any exposure to orthopaedics during the foundation programme and only 13% felt they had adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine. The foundation programme currently provides inadequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. The quality and quantity of exposure to musculoskeletal medicine during the foundation programme must be improved.