Fractures around Trochanteric Nails: The "Vergilius Classification System".

INTRODUCTION: The fractures that occurred around trochanteric nails (perinail fractures, PNFs) are becoming a huge challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon. Although presenting some specific critical issues (i.e., patients' outcomes and treatment strategies), these fractures are commonly described within peri-implant ones and their treatment was based on periprosthetic fracture recommendations. The knowledge gap about PNFs leads us to convene a research group with the aim to propose a specific classification system to guide the orthopaedic surgeon in the management of these fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A steering committee, identified by two Italian associations of orthopaedic surgeons, conducted a comprehensive literature review on PNFs to identify the unmet needs about this topic. Subsequently, a panel of experts was involved in a consensus meeting proposing a specific classification system and formulated treatment statements for PNFs. Results and Discussion. The research group considered four PNF main characteristics for the classification proposal: (1) fracture localization, (2) fracture morphology, (3) fracture fragmentation, and (3) healing status of the previous fracture. An alphanumeric code was included to identify each characteristic, allowing to describe up to 54 categories of PNFs, using a 3- to 4-digit code. The proposal of the consensus-based classification reporting the most relevant aspects for PNF treatment might be a useful tool to guide the orthopaedic surgeon in the appropriate management of these fractures.

Atypical periprosthetic femoral fractures of the hip: characterisation of three cases.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term use of bisphosphonates (BPs) has been associated with a specific type of tensile side femoral stress fracture known as Atypical Femoral Fracture (AFF). Theoretically periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) should be excluded from the diagnosis of AFF. However, emerging evidence correlates prolonged BPs use with the occurrence of a type of PFF with an atypical pattern (atypical PFF, APFF). The aim of the present study is to report 3 cases of APFF treated at a single centre. METHODS: Clinical and radiographic records of PFF that occurred between January 2016 and August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients meeting the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) criteria for definition of PFF were included. Management strategies for APFF and patient outcomes, including fracture healing and hip function (assessed by the Oxford Hip Score [OHS]) were collected. RESULTS: 3 patients in the study period were identified as APFF (1 incomplete, 2 complete). All patients were females with a mean age of 83.3 years. All patients were treated with lateral plating. The application of a contralateral strut allograft resulted in fracture healing in cases of complete fractures. Mean OHS at final follow-up was 34.3. CONCLUSIONS: Despite occurring around a hip stem like PFF, APFF had peculiar clinical and radiographic features, making them more similar to AFF. Therefore, the orthopaedic surgeon should also consider the natural history and healing problems associated with AFF prior in order to choose the most appropriate management for APFF.