header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXIX | Pages 33 - 33
1 Jul 2012
Weston-Simons JS Pandit H Halikar V Price AJ Dodd CAF Popat M Murray DW
Full Access

STUDY PURPOSES

To evaluate the role of “top up” intra-articular local anaesthetic injection in patients who have had UKR.

METHOD AND RESULTS

43 patients scheduled to have a cemented Oxford UKR were prospectively recruited and randomised. All patients had the same initial anaesthetic regime of general anaesthesia, femoral nerve block and intra-operative intra-articular infiltration. All patients had a multi-holed epidural catheter placed intra-articularly prior to wound closure. Patients had the same operative technique, post operative rehabilitation and rescue analgesia.

An independent, blinded observer recorded post-operative pain scores using a visual analogue score every 6 hours and any rescue analgesia. On the morning after surgery, 22 patients, (Group I), received 20 mls of 0.5% bupivicaine through the catheter whilst 21, (Group II), patients had 20 mls of normal saline by the same observer, after which the catheter was removed.

No statistical difference was found in pain scores on the day of operation between the groups. However, patients in Group I had a significantly better pain score initially post top up and at 6 hours (2.4 (0-8) vs 5.7 (2-9), p<0.001). This cohort of patients required less rescue analgesia (p<0.001). In addition, Group I had statistically significant higher patient satisfaction outcome scores after the infiltration, (p<0.001).


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 424 - 424
1 Sep 2009
Jeffs R Weston-Simons JS Twyman R
Full Access

Study Purposes: A retrospective study to assess patient’s height as a predictor for sizing the femoral component of the Phase 3 Oxford Unicompartmental Knee replacement.

Methods and Results: 118 patients post oxford uni-compartmental knee replacement were identified from the elective orthopaedic unit. Their post-operative radiographs were reviewed by 3 independent orthopaedic surgeons according to the Oxford Group criteria, measuring the femoral component fit. Patients were allocated to two cohorts: patients with ill-fitting prostheses and well fitting prosthesis.

Patient’s height and size of femoral component used at time of surgery was recorded. The results showed a positive correlation between the patient’s height and a well fitting femoral prosthesis.

Conclusions: Current templates with the Oxford Phase Three system may not provide accurate guide to the correct femoral prosthesis size for a patient. Recent studies have highlighted the wide range of magnifications used in computerised X-ray systems leading to variance with templating. Other studies have shown large inter-observer variability when sizing the femoral component. A variable as simple as patient height may offer a more accurate guide for choosing the size of the femoral component.

We have demonstrated that the height of a patient can be a used to guide and assist in the sizing of the femoral component of the Oxford uni-compartmental knee replacement. This study may also have implications for the sizing of other prostheses currently in use.