Background: Controversy exists regarding the use of titanium and stainless steel implants in fracture surgery. To our knowledge, no recent, comprehensive review on this topic has been reported.Purpose: To perform a systematic review of the evidence in the current literature comparing differences between titanium and stainless steel implants for fracture fixation.Methods: A systematic review of original research articles was performed through the PubMed database using PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies comparing titanium and stainless steel implants in orthopaedic surgery, and outcome data were extracted.Results: The search returned 938 studies, with 37 studies meeting our criteria. There were 12 clinical research articles performed using human subjects, 11 animal studies, and 14 biomechanical studies. Clinical studies of the distal femur showed the stainless steel cohorts had significantly decreased callus formation and an increased odds radio (OR 6.3, 2.7-15.1; P < .001) of nonunion when compared with the titanium plate cohorts. In the distal radius, 3 clinical trials showed no implant failures in either group, and no difference in incidence of plate removal, or functional outcome. Three clinical studies showed a slightly increased odds ratio of locking screw breakage with stainless steel intramedullary nails compared with titanium intramedullary nails (OR 1.52, CI 1.1-2.13). Conclusion:Stainless steel implants have equal or superior biomechanical properties when compared with titanium implants. However, there is clinical evidence that titanium plates have a lower rate of failure and fewer complications than similar stainless steel implants in some situations. Although our review supports the use of titanium implants in these clinical scenarios, we emphasize that further prospective, comparative clinical studies are required before the conclusions can be made.

Background: Rectal cancer (RC) among young patients (≤50 years) is on the rise. The factors associated with development of RC are established however; factors leading to early RC remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with RC among young patients Methods: National estimates for patients with RC were abstracted from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database [2010-2012]. Patients were divided into two groups: young (≤50 years) and old (>50 years). Demographic, comorbidities, procedures performed, and hospital outcomes were collected. Regression analysis was performed to compare both groups. Results: A total of 68,699 patients with RC were included. Incidence of RC among young patients increased significantly over the study period (2.4% vs. 3.4%; P=0.04). Majority of young patients with RC were white females. Bleeding was the most common presentation among young patients (P=0.03). Younger patients were more likely to have a family history of RC (P=0.01) and were more likely to undergo elective surgery (P=0.04) and laparoscopic surgery (P=0.02) compared to the older patients. Younger patients with RC were also more likely to use alcohol (P=0.03), be obese (P=0.02) compared to elder patients. There was no difference in the other co-morbidities between the two groups. After controlling for all factors in a regression model, younger patients had a lower complication rate (P=0.01), hospital LOS (P=0.02), and mortality rate (P=0.04). Conclusions: RC in younger patients appears as a different disease with different outcomes. There appears to be multifactorial and environmental factors contributing to this trend. Race and gender also play a role in the incidence of RC in the young. Identifying these risk factors will lead to a more robust intervention plan to help improve care among younger patients with RC.