It is not often that the patient, surgeon and hospital management are happy about the same service. However, day-case surgery is an exception, as it has well recognised cost-effectiveness. The new day-surgical shoulder arthroscopy service was audited from its commencement in August 2008 until April 2010. The objectives were to see if patients were going home the same day.

All data was gathered retrospectively via the hospital's online database and the patients' notes were collected. An Excel database was created.

From August 2008 to April 2010, a total of 41 arthroscopies were performed on 41 patients. Consultant K.A. was the operator in each case. In all cases, an interscalene nerve block was attempted by a consultant anaesthetist. All patients received endotracheal intubation and they were placed in a ‘beach-chair’ position. 49% of patients were male and 51% female. Age range was from 17-70 and the average age was 51 years. 66% underwent a sub-acromial decompression and the remainder had a cuff repair. There were two unplanned admissions due to an ineffective interscalene nerve block and the other patient suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and his carer was unavailable. All patients that went home did not re-attend as an emergency. There were no adverse events documented.

After discussion with senior staff, we conclude that this service is working well. Key facets of this service are that it should be consultant led with a familiar team, adhere to the standard day-surgical criteria and use interscalene nerve analgesia. The use of continuous regional anaesthetic infusion pumps may improve patient comfort, as reports suggest that they have some advantages. This service shall be re-audited in 2 years time.

Aims: There is a resurgence of interest in hip resurfacing. To date, our own unit has treated 60 patients (65 hips) with the Corin hip resurfacings. Between Jan 99 and July 02, 12 of these patients required early revision surgery. Methods: Retrospective study. Results: The indication for revision was fractured neck of femur in þve cases. 4 of the 5 fractured neck of femurs cases occurred within 6 months of the primary procedure. There were 4 cases of loose acetabular components and one case of progressive avascular necrosis. One patient required revision surgery for ongoing hip pain and one required a two stage revision for early deep infection. Conclusions: In the DGH environment, resurfacing may be associated with a high revision rate with a signiþcant learning curve.

One of the most commonly cited advantages of hip resurfacing is the technical ease of revision surgery on the femoral side of the joint. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that such surgery ought to be associated with reduced operative times, reduced blood loss and more rapid mobilisation than conventional hip revision. However, there is little objective evidence in the literature to support this view.

In our own unit, 6 consultants have now revised 15 hip resurfacings (13 Corins and 2 MMT Birmingham Hip Resurfacings). A retrospective study of the hospital records was performed to compare three well recorded parameters 1) On table operative times 2) Post Operative blood transfusion requirement 3) In patient length of stay.

Average on table time was 195 minutes for conventional THR revision and 120 minutes for revision of resurfacing i.e. a 1 third reduction in theatre time for resurfacing with attendant advantages in costs and risks. However, post operative length of stay was little different between the two groups.

Average blood transfusion requirement was 4.6 units for conventional THR revision (n=190) and 0.9 units for revision of resurfacing. However, these crude figures do not take into account the difference in physiological state between the two groups of patients. A more complex comparison of age matched revision THR patients shows and average transfusion requirement of 1.8 to 2.2 units for revision of THR versus 0.9 units for revision resurfacing.

In conclusion, there is now objective evidence of the advantages of resurfacing in the revision situation but that these advantages are more modest than those anticipated.

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to analyse survival and prognostic factors in a series of patients treated for pelvic chondrosarcoma.

Material and methods: This series included 67 patients (27 women and 40 men) treated between 1971 and 1996 for pelvic chondrosarcoma. Mean age at diagnosis was 45 years (range 18–78). Forty percent of the tumours were grade I. The most frequent localisation was the iliac bone. Conservative surgery was performed in 45 patients. The only surgical treatment possible in 22 patients was an inter-ilioabdominal disarticulation. Resection margins were adequate for only 19 patients (wide resection). Marginal resection was noted in 14 patients with intra-tumour resection in 17.

Results: Overall 5- and 8-year survival was 65% and 58% respectively. Local recurrence rate was 40%, occurring a mean 27 months after initial surgery. Statistical analysis did not reveal any correlation between tumour size, tumour grade, type of surgery, resection margin, and local recurrence. Results were nevertheless less favourable in case of inadequate surgical margins. Tumour grade, tumour size, patient age, gender, and quality of resection did not have a significant effect on overall survival. Local recurrence was the only negative factor predictive of survival (p< 0.05).

Discussion: Development of local recurrence appears to be the most important negative predictive factor in patients with pelvic chondrosarcoma. In this localisation, satisfactory resection margins are often difficult to achieve. Most authors propose inter-ilioabdominal disarticulation as a last resort procedure. The question of the indication for more aggressive initial surgery to obtain more radical resection margins remains open.

In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the concept of hip resurfacing. Since 1996, we have treated 60 patients (65 hips) with the Corin Hip Resurfacing.

Of the 65 primary procedures, 13 have now required revision. 1 case was complicated by early deep infection and 12 (17%) for mechanical failure. 5 of these patients were male and 8 female. Mean time to failure was 11 months (range 48 hours to 53 months). 8 out of the 12 mechanical failures required revision within 6 months of the primary procedure. Mean age of the revision patients was 57 years (range 22 – 71 years).

The most common failure modality (6 cases) was fractured neck of femur. 4 out of 6 of these cases occurred in women over 60 years of age. All of these fractures occurred without a specific history of trauma. Since only 12 patients were women over 60, 1 in 3 women over 60 years of age in our series were complicated by fractured neck of femur.

In 4 cases, the indication for revision was acetabular loosening. One patient had ongoing pain of unknown aetiology and one developed progressive avascular necorsis of the femoral head with subsequent collapse.

Of the 12 cases requiring revision for mechanical failure, two cases required revision of the femoral component only and this was performed using the stemmed modular CTI prosthesis produced by Corin for this purpose. Three cases required revision of the socket only and the others were revised to total joint replacement. The one case of early deep infection was treated by two stage revision. There were no dislocations in our series and there was no evidence of metallosis.

Not for the first time in the history of orthopaedics, a DGH has been unable to repeat the excellent results reported by a specialist centre with a new technique. However, analysis of the above data has led us to believe that our results may be much improved by careful patient selection. It is also apparent that formal revision strategies need to be developed for hips resurfacing.

Our centre has used a specially designed custom-made endoprostheses with curved stems to reconstruct femoral defects in patients with residual short proximal femur after excision of primary bone sarcoma over the last 18 years. Two designs of endoprostheses with curved intramedullary stems were used: the rhinohorn stem type and the bifid stem type. We report the safety, survival and functional outcome of this form of reconstruction.

Twenty six patients who had these special endoprosthesis reconstruction were studied. The median age was 16 years (range 7 to 60 years). Prostheses with rhino horn stems were used in 15 patients and bifid-stem in 1 1 patients. Twenty patients had the prostheses inserted as a primary procedure after excision of primary bone sarcoma, and in six patients the prostheses were inserted after revision surgery of failed distal femur endoprostheses. Seventeen patients (65%) were alive and free of disease at a median follow-up of 98 months (12 to 203 months) and nine patients had died of metastatic disease. Local recurrence developed in two patients (1 0%) out of the 20 patients. Surgical complications occurred in five patients (191/o). Deep infections occurred in two patients (8%) requiring revision surgery in one patient. Prosthetic failure, occurred in nine patients (35%). The cumulative survival of prostheses was 69% at five years and 43% at 10 years. Musculoskeletal Tumour Society mean functional score was 83% (53% to 97%).

In conclusion, preservation of a short segment of the proximal femur and the use of endoprostheses with curved stems for reconstruction of the femur is technically possible. There is an increased risk of fracture of the prostheses decreasing the survival rate. Functional outcome of patients with this form of reconstruction is not significantly different from the functional outcome of patients who have proximal femur or total femur endoprosthetic reconstruction. This operation is particularly desirable in skeletally immature patients and allows normal development of the acetabulum.