Femoral neck fractures are a major source of disability in the elderly. Rehabilitation is fundamental to recover pre-fracture functionality. We conducted an observational cohort study with the aim of comparing the efficacy of rehabilitation programs in different therapeutic settings. We included elderly patients who had undergone surgical stabilization of a hip fracture. The participants were divided into 3 groups: group 1, outpatient rehabilitation; group 2, inpatient rehabilitation; group 3, home-based rehabilitation. Patients were evaluated at baseline, at three months, and at six months after fracture. Our outcome measures were the Barthel Index (BI), Functional Ambulation Categories, passive and active range of motion of hip flexion and abduction, and muscle strength in hip flexion, abduction, and knee extension. At six months, all three groups showed an average statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in all outcome measures compared to the baseline. Considering the between-group analysis, final BI was significantly higher in outpatient than inpatient-treated patients (p = 0.018), but no statistical difference was found between outpatient and home-based patients. Our findings suggest that rehabilitation leads to significant functional recovery after hip fracture in elderly patients. Both outpatient and home-based rehabilitation seem to be reasonable options for hip fracture rehabilitation.

• activities of daily living
• aging
• frail elderly
• hip fractures
• rehabilitation

Fractures of femur proximal extremity (FFPE) are the most common fragility fractures requiring hospitalization, with a high risk of mortality, low independence in the activities of daily living and severe consequences on health-related quality of life. Timing for surgery has a key role in the management of elderly patients with FFPE as recommended by the Australian and New Zealand guidelines and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Early surgery (within 48 h from hospital admission) allows significant benefits in terms of lower rates of postoperative complications and risk of death and can provide better functional outcomes. Therefore, time for surgery could be considered as a comorbidity marker. The choice between conservative or surgical approach surprisingly seems to be still not strongly supported by available literature, but it seems that both 30 d and 1 year risk of mortality is higher with the conservative treatment rather than with surgery. In light of these considerations, the optimization of FFPE management care is mandatory to improve functional outcomes and to reduce sanitary costs. Albeit it is widely accepted that transdisciplinary approach to patients suffering from FFPE is mandatory to optimize both short-term and long-term outcomes, the feasibility of a comprehensive approach in clinical practice is still a challenge. In particular, the large variability of figures involved could be considered both a resource and an additional disadvantage taking into account the difficulty to coordinate multidisciplinary approach covering care in all settings. Therefore, the aim of the present article was to summarize current evidence supporting transdisciplinary management of patients with FFPE, highlighting the benefits, feasibility and limitations of this approach.

• Transdisciplinary management
• Elderly
• Femur fracture
• Hip fracture
• Rehabilitation
• Pathway

• Distal femur fracture
• Intramedullary nail
• Locked plating
• Retrograde intramedullary nail

• Unstable distal femoral fractures
• distal femoral locking compression plate (DFLCP)
• fixation failure
• non-union
• varus mal-union

• delirium
• femur
• hip
• fracture
• cognitive status
• hospitalization

Proximal humeral fractures (PHF) are the third most common non-vertebral fragility fractures after hip and distal radius. It still controversial which treatment might be more appropriate, and surgically treated outcomes depends also on an appropriate technique. In order to clarify surgical indications, tips and pitfall a narrative review was conducted. Pinning, external fixation, plating and internal fixators has each one its advantages and disadvantages. During the procedure an appropriate use of the fixation device and handling of the soft tissue might be associated with better outcomes. Calcar comminution, varus angulation, medial dislocation of the shaft, fracture-dislocation are factors that could lead to choose a replacement. Hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty are the most common prosthesis used in PHF. The restoration of humeral length and tuberosities might lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes and prosthesis survivorship.

• Fragility fracture
• Locking plate
• Osteoporosis
• Proximal humeral fracture
• Shoulder arthroplasty

The treatment aims of periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the distal femur are a gentle stabilization, an early load-bearing capacity and a rapid postoperative mobilization of the affected patients. For the therapy planning of PPF a standardized classification is necessary which leads to a clear and safe therapy recommendation. Despite different established classifications, there is none that includes the types of prosthesis used in the assessment. For this purpose, the objective of this work is to create a new more extensive fracture and implant-related classification of periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur based on available classifications which allows distinct therapeutic recommendations.

In a retrospective analysis all patients who were treated in the University Hospital Leipzig from 2010 to 2016 due to a distal femur fracture with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were established. To create an implant-associated classification the cases were discussed in a panel of experienced orthopaedists and well-practiced traumatologists with a great knowledge in the field of endoprosthetics and fracture care. In this context, two experienced surgeons classified 55 consecutive fractures according to Su et al., Lewis and Rorabeck and by the new created classification. In this regard, the interobserver reliability was determined for two independent raters in terms of Cohen Kappa.

On the basis of the most widely recognized classifications of Su et al. as well as Lewis and Rorabeck, we established an implant-dependent classification for PPF of the distal femur. In accordance with the two stated classifications four fracture types were created and defined. Moreover, the four most frequent prosthesis types were integrated. Finally, a new classification with 16 subtypes was generated based on four types of fracture and four types of prosthesis. Considering all cases the presented implant-associated classification (κ = 0.74) showed a considerably higher interobserver reliability compared to the other classifications of Su et al. (κ = 0.39) as well as Lewis and Rorabeck (κ = 0.31). Excluding the cases which were only assessable by the new classification, it still shows a higher interobserver reliability (κ = 0.70) than the other ones (κ = 0.63 or κ = 0.45).

The new classification system for PPF of the distal femur following TKA considers fracture location and implant type. It is easy to use, shows agood interobserver reliability and allows conclusions to be drawn on treatment recommendations. Moreover, further studies on the evaluation of the classification are necessary and planned.

• Distal femur
• Implant-dependent classification
• Periprosthetic fractures
• Total knee arthroplasty

• Fixed angle implant
• Fracture reduction
• Locking screws
• Range of motion
• Union