Introducción: Los bifosfonatos evolucionaron como el pilar para el tratamiento de la osteoporosis, reduciendo la incidencia de fracturas. Recientemente, varias publicaciones describieron la aparición de fracturas atípicas de fémur de baja energía asociadas con el uso de bifosfonatos. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el tiempo promedio de consolidación de las fracturas atípicas de fémur asociadas al tratamiento con bifosfonatos comparado con el de un grupo de control. Materiales y Métodos: Se evaluó, en forma retrospectiva, a 34 mujeres (edad promedio 74 años) con fracturas atípicas; 16 de ellas habían recibido bifosfonatos, al menos, por cinco años. Fueron tratadas entre 2006 y 2017, y estabilizadas con un clavo cefalomedular. Este grupo fue comparado con un grupo de control de similares características. Resultados: Veintidós tenían fracturas subtrocantéricas y 12, diafisarias. El 14% de las que tomaron bifosfonatos y fueron operadas requirió una revisión frente al 5,5% del grupo de control. El tiempo promedio de consolidación fue mayor en las tratadas con bifosfonatos (8.5 vs. 6 meses), con una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p <0,001).Conclusiones: El beneficio del tratamiento con bifosfonatos en la prevención de fracturas es superior al riesgo de fracturas atípicas; sin embargo, es importante evaluar la relación riesgo-beneficio en cada paciente al comienzo y durante el tratamiento, teniendo en cuenta que, pese a esto, el tiempo de curación es más largo. AbstractIntroduction: Bisphosphonates evolved as the mainstay for the treatment of osteoporosis, reducing the incidence of fractures. Recently, several publications described the occurrence of low-energy atypical femur fractures associated with the use of bisphosphonates. The objective of this work was to study the average time of consolidation of the atypical femoral fractures caused by the consumption of bisphosphonates compared with a control group.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 34 patients with atypical femoral fractures of which 16 patients had undergone treatment with bisphosphonates for at least 5 years, treated between 2006 and 2017, and stabilized with a cephalomedullary nail, and were compared with a control group of similar characteristics.Results: All the patients were female. The average age was 74 years. 22 presented subtrochanteric fractures while 12 were diaphyseal. 14% of the subjects who took bisphosphonates and received surgical treatment, required a revision versus 5.5% of the control group. The average time of consolidation was higher in those treated with bisphosphonates (8.5 months vs. 6 months), this being statistically significant (p <0.001).Conclusions: The benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates in the prevention of fractures is greater than the risk of atypical fractures. However, it is important to evaluate the risk-benefit in each patient at the beginning and the duration of the treatment, taking into account that despite this, the healing time is longer.

Introduction: Indications in the operative and nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff tears are widely discussed and not standardized. The aim of this study is to evaluate the variability among Argentinean orthopedic surgeons regarding the indications of treatment for different rotator cuff injuries. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was developed based on the study carried out by Dunn et al. Our aim was to gather the opinions of Argentinean orthopedic surgeons on decision-making concerning thetreatment of different rotator cuff lesions. The questionnaire was sent to 2 groups: general orthopedic surgeons and shoulder specialist surgeons, included according to the number of shoulders treated surgically and non-surgically in 2017. The questionnaire has two sections: 4 hypothetical clinical cases and 11 questions on factors that could influence treatment selection. Results: Out of 556 questionnaires sent, 162 were completed, 117 by general orthopedic surgeons and 45 by shoulder specialists. The specialists reported mostly arthroscopic repairs (60%), general orthopedic surgeons reported repairing these injuries mainly by mini-open or by standard open technique (49% and 22% respectively). The failure rate was considered to be 20%, not evidencing differences between professionals (P=0.42). There was also agreement in the contraindication of the use of corticosteroids before surgery(P=0.74). Conclusion: This study evidences significant variability in the management of these patients (for which we selected potentially controversial injuries), making it difficult to establish protocols or consensus guidelines to help standardize treatments for these injuries. Level of evidence: IIb