header advert
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 18 - 18
17 Nov 2023
Gallagher H Naeem H Wood N Daou HN Pereira MG Giannoudis PV Roberts LD Howard A Bowen TS
Full Access

Abstract

Introduction

Skeletal muscle wasting is an important clinical issue following acute traumatic injury, and can delay recovery and cause permanent functional disability particularly in the elderly. However, the fundamental mechanisms involved in trauma-induced muscle wasting remain poorly defined and therapeutic interventions are limited.

Objectives

To characterise local and systemic mediators of skeletal muscle wasting in elderly patients following acute trauma.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 22 - 22
1 Apr 2013
Tan H Cuthbert RJ Jones E Churchman S McGonagle D Giannoudis PV
Full Access

We hypothesise that the Masquelet induced membrane used for the reconstruction of large bone defects were likely to involve mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), given the excellent resultant skeletal repair. This study represents the first characterisation in humans of the induced membrane formed as a result of the Masquelet technique.

Methods

Induced membranes and matching periosteum were harvested from 7 patients. Cytokines (BMP2, VEGF, SDF1) and cell lineage markers (CD31, CD271, CD146) were studied by immunohistochemisty. Flow cytometry was used to measure the cellularity and cellular composition. MSCs were enumerated using a colony forming unit fibroblast assay. In expanded cultures, a 96-gene array card was used to assess their transcriptional profile. Alkaline phophatase, alizarin red and calcium assays were employed to measure their in vitro osteogenic potential

Results

Membrane was more cellular(p=0.028), had more MSC phenotype(p=0.043) compared to matched periosteum. The molecular profiles were similar, except for 2-fold abundance of SDF-1 in membrane (p=0.043)compared to periosteum. Membrane and periosteum had a similar proportion of endothelial cells and CFU-F colonies; expanded MSCs from both sources were highly osteogenic.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 25 - 25
1 Apr 2013
KOUROUPIS D JONES E BABOOLAL T GIANNOUDIS PV
Full Access

Introduction

The concept of “bone graft expanders” has been popularised to increase the volume and biological activity of the implanted Material.

HYPOTHESIS

Orthoss® granules support exogenously seeded MSCs and attract neighbouring host MSCs.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_19 | Pages 6 - 6
1 Apr 2013
Singh R Rambani R Kanakaris N Giannoudis PV
Full Access

Introduction

Clavicle fractures can cause pain and functional impairment if not managed appropriately. This paper evaluates the prevalence of clavicular fractures, estimates number of cases requiring operative treatment, whether removal of implant is a frequent necessity and compares the final functional outcome of the operative and non-operative group.

Materials/Methods

Between November 2005 and November 2007 patients with clavicular fractures were eligible for participation. Patients below 18 years of age, and pathological fractures were excluded. Operative versus non-operative treatment, radiographic classification (Allman system), complications, implant removal, and functional outcome using the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scores were documented and analysed.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 540 - 540
1 Aug 2008
Jamil W Allami M Al Maiyah M Varghese B Giannoudis PV
Full Access

Introduction: A single hip screw is the recommended method of fixation for slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE). Current practice favours the placement of the screw in the centre of the femoral head on both anteroposterior and lateral planes to avoid the risks of chondrolysis and avascular necrosis (AVN).

Aims: To investigate the correlation between different positions of the screw in the femoral head and the prevalence of AVN, chondrolysis, late slippage, and the time to epiphyseal closure.

Methods: The clinical notes and radiographs of 38 consecutive patients (61 hips), who underwent single screw fixation for SUFE, were evaluated retrospectively with a mean follow up of 36 months. Two way ANOVA and post hoc test was performed to analyse the correlation between the different variables and the outcome, at 5% significance level.

Results: There were 16 acute slips, 18 chronic slips and 10 acute on chronic slips. 17 slips were treated prophylactically. Mild slip was encountered in 39 hips, moderate in 4 and severe in 1 hip. Central-Central position was only achieved in 51% of cases. The most significant results of the study were as follows. I: No significant difference between the time to epiphyseal closure and the position of the screw. II. No late slippage or chondrolysis was observed in our series.

Conclusion: Our results showed that the position of the screw, other than in the centre of the femoral head, has the ability to provide physeal stability and has no correlation with the timing to closure of the epiphysis and the risk of avascular necrosis or chondrolysis. We therefore recommend that other positions be considered if the “optimal central-central position” is not initially achieved specifically for the treatment of mild SUFE as the potential hazards from several attempts to achieve the optimum position outweigh the benefits.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 523 - 523
1 Aug 2008
Jamil W Allami M Al Maiyah M Varghese B Giannoudis PV
Full Access

Purpose of study: A single dynamic hip screw is the recommended method of fixation for slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE). Current practice favours placement of the screw in the centre of the femoral head on both anteroposterior and lateral planes. This study investigated screw placement in the femoral head for SUFE and the prevalence of AVN, chondrolysis, late slippage, and time to physeal closure.

Method: Clinical notes and radiographs of 38 consecutive patients (61 hips), who underwent single screw fixation for SUFE, were evaluated retrospectively with a minimum follow up of 24 months (24–56). Two way ANOVA and post hoc tests were performed to analyse the correlation between the different variables and the outcome, at a 5% significance level.

Results: There were 16 acute slips, 18 chronic slips and 10 acute on chronic slips. 17 slips were treated prophylactically. Mild slip was noted in 39 hips, moderate in 4 and severe in 1 hip. A central-central position was only achieved in 50% of cases. No significant difference between the time to physeal closure and the screw position was found. No late slippage, AVN or chondrolysis occurred in this series.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that positions of the screw, other than in the centre of the femoral head, provide adequate stability. There is no correlation between screw position and the time to physeal closure, the risk of avascular necrosis or chondrolysis. We recommend that positions other than the “optimal central-central position” be accepted if not initially achieved, especially for mild SUFE. The potential hazards from several attempts to achieve the optimum position outweigh the benefits.