The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs...

Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty in elderly represent an emerging cause of implant revision and their incidence seems destined to further increase in the upcoming years, considering the ever-increasing number of implanted prostheses. These are complex injuries with very high complication rates. It has been estimated that the incidence of femoral periprosthetic fractures after T.K.A. ranged between 0,3 to 2,5%, but increases up to 38% when considering revision T.K.A. Patient-related risk factors for T.K.A. periprosthetic fracture (T.K.A.P.F.) include osteoporosis, age, female sex, revision arthroplasty and peri-implant osteolysis. The grate debate concerns the choice of the most appropriate fixation device for T.K.A.P.F.: closed or open reduction with internal fixation with either locked plate or intramedullary nail is the most commonly used for treating these fractures. Success of these methods depends on the fracture pattern, the stability of implants, and the patient’s bone quality which is often poor in elderly, thus resulting in high complication rates. Conversely, a revision of T.K.A. (R.T.K.A.) should be considered in case of prosthetic component instability, severe comminution or metaphyseal extension of the fracture (that precludes a good fixation), previous treatments failure and severe malalignment of T.K.A. Instead megaprosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite are necessary in case of sever bone loss. Considering the variability of the clinical scenario of T.K.A.P.F., this complex injury requires and experienced and comprehensive approach based on both facture fixation and/or revision arthroplasty.

Ventilators, masks, and tests are in short supply.