Background Double ipsilateral femoral fractures account for 1-9% of femoral fractures. There is no clear advantage between single or double implant osteosynthesis. We present a series of patients with double ipsilateral femoral fractures, to address the challenges in treatment, namely the implants for osteosynthesis and complications of treatment. Materials and methods We retrospectively studied 16 patients (7 men, 9 women; mean age, 51 years) treated from January 2015 to December 2018. Motor vehicle accidents were the leading cause of injury. Types of fractures were pertrochanteric and shaft (6), pertrochanteric and distal (2), double shaft (3), neck and shaft (2), neck and distal (1), shaft and distal (1), and triple fracture including a pertrochanteric, shaft and distal (1). In five patients, two different implants were used (plate and screws, cannulated hip screws, femoral nail), whereas in 11 patients a long femoral nail was used. Results Fourteen patients experienced union at a mean of 3 months (2-6 months). Two patients experienced nonunion: both had plate and screws osteosynthesis. One patient died 15 days after admission from polytrauma and another patient experienced central venous catheter thrombosis and pneumonia. Surgical complications (2 patients) included a thigh skin necrosis, and external fixator pin tract infection/infected non-union. Weight-bearing was delayed in all patients; full weight-bearing was allowed in 11 patients at 4 months postoperatively, and in four patients at 5 months. Conclusion Due to the rarity and the difficulty of standardization of double ipsilateral femoral fractures, there is variable information on the optimal osteosynthesis of the fractures and the outcome of the patients. It seems that closed reduction and long hip nailing is the treatment of choice, with few complications.

Purpose Running, jumping/landing and cutting/change of direction (CoD) are critical components of return to sport (RTS) following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), however the electromyographic (EMG) activity patterns of the operated leg during the execution of these tasks are not clear. Methods A systematic review was conducted to retrieve EMG studies during running, jumping/landing and cutting/(CoD) in ACLR patients. MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases were searched from 2000 to May, 2022 using a combination of keywords and their variations: “anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction” OR “ACLR”, “electromyography” OR “EMG”, “running”, “jumping” OR “landing”, “cutting” OR “change-of-direction” OR “CoD”. The search identified studies comparing EMG data during running, landing and cutting/(CoD) between the involved limb and contralateral or control limbs. Risk of bias was assessed and quantitative analyses using effect sizes were performed. Results Thirty two studies met the inclusion criteria. Seventy five percent (24/32) of the studies reported altered EMG activity pattern of the ACLR leg during running, jumping/landing and cutting/(CoD) when compared with either the healthy control leg or the contra-lateral leg. Twelve studies showed decreased, delayed or earlier onset and delayed peak in quadriceps EMG activity with small to large effect sizes and 9 studies showed increased, delayed or earlier onset and delayed peak in hamstrings EMG activity with small to large effect sizes. Four studies showed a “hamstrings-dominant” strategy i.e. decreased quadriceps coupled with increased hamstrings EMG activity in both running and jumping/landing irrespective of graft type. One study reported that on the grounds of decreased quadriceps activity, lower hamstrings EMG activity was predictive of ipsilateral re-injury in ACLR patients. Conclusion This systematic review of Level III evidence showed that the ACLR leg displays decreased quadriceps or increased hamstrings EMG activity or both despite RTS. Simultaneous decreased quadriceps and increased hamstrings EMG activity was shown for both running and jumping/landing. From a clinical perspective this “hamstrings dominant” strategy can serve as a protective mechanism against graft re-injury. Level of evidence III.

No abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the history of microsurgery in Greece and how it evolved throughout the years. It is based on published literature as well as anecdotal evidence. It is by no means an exhaustive list of available resources and contributions. Microsurgery in Greece begins with Prof Soucacos who acquired his microsurgical skills in the USA (1970–1974), where he worked as a clinical and research fellow. After gaining invaluable experience, he returned to his home country, Greece, to establish a microsurgery replantation team in 1975. His team gained national recognition soon thereafter thanks to the many successes and innovations they achieved. The tradition is continued with contemporary microsurgical courses in Greece from expert faculty and a busy microsurgical practice in several centers across the country. The experimental educational program in microsurgery includes a blend of synthetic and live animal models, such as rats and rabbits. They include a complete exposure to basic and advanced practical exercises through several days. The simulation training models slowly but surely steadily advance to meet the training standards.