Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 3 | Pages 296 - 302
1 Mar 2018
SprowsonAP Jensen C Parsons N Partington P Emmerson K Carluke I Asaad S Pratt R Muller S Ahmed I Reed MR

Aims

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of surgery with an incidence of about 1% in the United Kingdom. Sutures can lead to the development of a SSI, as micro-organisms can colonize the suture as it is implanted. Triclosan-coated sutures, being antimicrobical, were developed to reduce the rate of SSI. Our aim was to assess whether triclosan-coated sutures cause a reduction in SSIs following arthroplasty of the hip and knee.

Patients and Methods

This two-arm, parallel, double-blinded study involved 2546 patients undergoing elective total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at three hospitals. A total of 1323 were quasi-randomized to a standard suture group, and 1223 being quasi-randomized to the triclosan-coated suture group. The primary endpoint was the rate of SSI at 30 days postoperatively.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 7 | Pages 904 - 911
1 Jul 2017
Wall PDH SprowsonAP Parsons NR Parsons H Achten J Balasubramanian S Thompson P Costa ML

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a femoral nerve block and a periarticular infiltration in the management of early post-operative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Patients and Methods

A pragmatic, single centre, two arm parallel group, patient blinded, randomised controlled trial was undertaken. All patients due for TKA were eligible. Exclusion criteria included contraindications to the medications involved in the study and patients with a neurological abnormality of the lower limb. Patients received either a femoral nerve block with 75 mg of 0.25% levobupivacaine hydrochloride around the nerve, or periarticular infiltration with 150 mg of 0.25% levobupivacaine hydrochloride, 10 mg morphine sulphate, 30 mg ketorolac trometamol and 0.25 mg of adrenaline all diluted with 0.9% saline to make a volume of 150 ml.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1534 - 1541
1 Nov 2016
SprowsonAP Jensen C Chambers S Parsons NR Aradhyula NM Carluke I Inman D Reed MR

Aims

A fracture of the hip is the most common serious orthopaedic injury, and surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most significant complications, resulting in increased mortality, prolonged hospital stay and often the need for further surgery. Our aim was to determine whether high dose dual antibiotic impregnated bone cement decreases the rate of infection.

Patients and Methods

A quasi-randomised study of 848 patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip was conducted in one large teaching hospital on two sites. All were treated with a hemiarthroplasty. A total of 448 patients received low dose single-antibiotic impregnated cement (control group) and 400 patients received high dose dual-antibiotic impregnated cement (intervention group). The primary outcome measure was deep SSI at one year after surgery.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 4, Issue 11 | Pages 181 - 189
1 Nov 2015
Hickson CJ Metcalfe D Elgohari S Oswald T Masters JP Rymaszewska M Reed MR SprowsonAP

Objectives

We wanted to investigate regional variations in the organisms reported to be causing peri-prosthetic infections and to report on prophylaxis regimens currently in use across England.

Methods

Analysis of data routinely collected by Public Health England’s (PHE) national surgical site infection database on elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty procedures between April 2010 and March 2013 to investigate regional variations in causative organisms. A separate national survey of 145 hospital Trusts (groups of hospitals under local management) in England routinely performing primary hip and/or knee arthroplasty was carried out by standard email questionnaire.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 2, Issue 11 | Pages 245 - 247
1 Nov 2013
Sprowson AP Rankin KS McNamara I Costa ML Rangan A

The peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7.