English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Stress fractures have traditionally been classified into three categories: fatigue fractures due to overuse of bone with normal elastic resistance; insufficiency fractures due to everyday physiological stress on fragile bone with poor elastic resistance; and pathologic fractures due to bone weakness involving tumors. The concept of atypical fractures has emerged and is considered a type of stress fracture. However, there has been some inconsistency in interpretation when using the traditional classification of stress fractures, and atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) can potentially be classified into subtypes: “typical” AFFs involving bone turnover suppression due to specific drugs (e.g. bisphosphonates) and fragility fractures of the bowed femoral shaft. In this article, the classification of stress fractures is redefined with the addition of atypical fractures as a fourth category, in which biological activity for fracture healing is absent, to promote consistent understanding and interpretation of clinical conditions involving stress fractures.

Current concept of stress fractures with an additional category of atypical fractures: a perspective review with representative images