Background. Over 55,000 spinal operations are performed annually in the NHS. Effective postoperative analgesia facilitates early mobilisation and assists rehabilitation and hospital discharge, but is difficult to achieve with conventional, opioid-based, oral analgesia. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of two alternative techniques, namely intrathecal opioid and the more novel erector-spinae plane blockade, is unknown. The Pain Relief After Instrumented Spinal Surgery (PRAISE) trial aims to evaluate these techniques. Methods. PRAISE is a multicentre, prospective, parallel group, patient-blinded, randomised trial, seeking to recruit 456 adult participants undergoing elective, posterior lumbar-instrumented spinal surgery from up to 25 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive (1) Usual Care with local wound infiltration, (2) Intrathecal Opioid plus Usual Care with local wound infiltration or (3) Erector Spinae Plane blockade plus Usual Care with no local wound infiltration. The primary outcome is pain on movement on a 100mm visual analogue scale at 24 hours post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain at rest, leg pain, quality of recovery (QoR-15), postoperative opioid consumption, time to mobilisation, length of hospital stay, health utility (EQ-5D-5L), adverse events and resource use. Parallel economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results. Differences in the primary outcome at 24 hours will be estimated by mixed-effects linear regression modelling, with fixed effects for randomisation factors and other important prognostic variables, and random effects for centre, using the as-randomised population. Treatment effects with 95% confidence intervals will be presented. Conclusion. The study is due to open in May 2024 and complete in 2026. Conflicts of Interest. No conflicts of interest declared. Sources of Funding. NIHR Health Technology Award – grant number NIHR153170. Trial presentations so far. APOMP 2023 and 2024; RCOA conference, York, November 2023; Faculty of Pain Management training day, London, February 2024

Background. Acute lumbar radiculopathy is a very painful condition sometimes requiring admission for strong analgesia. Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy of distal nerve root blocks as an outpatient procedure for immediate pain relief. Methods. Local anaesthetic was injected in the distal nerve root areas of the leg and foot in the clinic in patients with lumbar radiculopathy who consented to the procedure. Results. There were 29 patients, 18 females and 11 males, aged 25 to 76 years. 13 patients had acute lumbar disc prolapse, 11 had lumbar canal stenosis, 2 had annular tears and one a facet joint cyst. The VAS pain scores ranged from 3 to 11 (patient's description), with an average VAS score of 7.5. The improvement in VAS scores was between 2 and 9 with average improvement of 6. 19 patients had associated back pain which improved in 14. Walking improved in all 29 patients. Pain relief was immediate in all patients. This lasted from 30 min to 11 days with one patient having no recurrence. 27 patients had at least 24 hours pain relief. All patients could be sent home immediately after the procedure. 12 patients had recent onset of foot weakness which improved one MRC grade immediately after the injection. The analgesic effect was most significant in acute disc prolapse. There were no complications. Conclusion. This technique is simple and would be valuable in the acute setting to provide immediate pain relief allowing immediate discharge from accident and emergency. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: None

Abstract. Objectives. To determine the effectiveness of LIA compared to ACB in providing pain relief and reducing opiates usage in hamstring graft ACL reconstructions. Materials and Methods. In a consecutive series of hamstring graft ACL reconstructions, patients received three different regional and/or anaesthetic techniques for pain relief. Three groups were studied: group 1: general anaesthetic (GA)+ ACB (n=38); group 2: GA + ACB + LIA (n=31) and group 3: GA+LIA (n=36). ACB was given under ultrasound guidance. LIA involved infiltration at skin incision site, capsule, periosteum and in the hamstring harvest tunnel. Analgesic medications were similar between the three groups as per standard multimodal analgesia (MMA). Patients were similar in demographics distribution and surgical technique. The postoperative pain and total morphine requirements were evaluated and recorded. The postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analogue scores (VAS) at 0hrs, 2hrs, 4hrs, weight bearing (WB) and discharge (DC). Results. There was no statistically significant difference in opiates intake amongst the three groups. When comparing VAS scores; there were no statistical difference between the groups at any of the time intervals that VAS was measured. However, the GA+LIA group hospital's LOS (m=2.31hrs, SD=0.75) was almost half that of GA+ACB group (m=4.24hrs, SD=1.08); (conditions t(72)=8.88; p=0.000). There was no statistical significance in the incidence of adverse effects amongst the groups. Conclusion. The LIA technique provided equally good pain relief following hamstring graft ACL reconstructions when compared to ACB, while allowing for earlier rehabilitation, mobilisation and discharge

Abstract. Objectives. To determine the effectiveness of LIA compared to ACB in providing pain relief and reducing opiates usage in hamstring graft ACL reconstructions. Materials and Methods. In a consecutive series of hamstring graft ACL reconstructions, patients received three different regional and/or anaesthetic techniques for pain relief. Three groups were studied: group 1: general anaesthetic (GA)+ ACB (n=38); group 2: GA + ACB + LIA (n=31) and group 3: GA+LIA (n=36). ACB was given under ultrasound guidance. LIA involved infiltration at skin incision site, capsule, periosteum and in the hamstring harvest tunnel. Analgesic medications were similar between the three groups as per standard multimodal analgesia (MMA). Patients were similar in demographics distribution and surgical technique. The postoperative pain and total morphine requirements were evaluated and recorded. The postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analogue scores (VAS) at 0hrs, 2hrs, 4hrs, weight bearing (WB) and discharge (DC). Results. There was no statistically significant difference in opiates intake amongst the three groups. When comparing VAS scores; there were no statistical difference between the groups at any of the time intervals that VAS was measured. However, the GA+LIA group hospital's LOS (m=2.31hrs, SD=0.75) was almost half that of GA+ACB group (m=4.24hrs, SD=1.08); (conditions t(72)=8.88; p=0.000). There was no statistical significance in the incidence of adverse effects amongst the groups. Conclusion. The LIA technique provided equally good pain relief following hamstring graft ACL reconstructions when compared to ACB, while allowing for earlier rehabilitation, mobilisation and discharge

Abstract. Introduction. Local anaesthetic injections are regularly used for perioperative pain relief for shoulder arthroscopies. In our practice all shoulder arthroscopies were performed under general aneasthesia supplemented by perioperative subacromial local anaesthetic injections or landmark guided axillary nerve together with suprascapular nerve injections. We compared pain relief achieved with these two methods. We hypothesized that the selective nerve blocks would provide better post operative pain relief as described in literature. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on two patient groups with 17 patients each. Group one patients received 20mls 50:50 mixture of 1% lignocaine and 0.5% chirocaine injections before and after start of procedure and group two patients received 20 mls of chirocaine around the axillary and suprascapular nerves. VAS scores were collected at 1 and 4 hours and analgesia taken during the first 24 hours was recorded. Results. No significant difference in pain scores was noted but analgesia requirements in the nerve block group were higher. Conclusion. Landmark guided nerve blocks did not show any advantage over subacromial local anaesthetic in our study. This is in contrast to published literature and we believe subacromial injections are more reliable and reproducible. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Purpose. Prospectively evaluate the timescale of leg pain resolution after lumbar discectomy and decompression, in the immediate post-operative period and identify possible risk factors for failure/delay in leg pain resolution. Materials and Methods. A prospective observational study of 100 consecutive patients undergoing lumbar discectomy or decompression. Patients recorded their leg and back pain in VAS and disability in ODI preoperatively. Patients rated their leg pain relief just prior to discharge after surgery. Telephone follow-up at 1-2 week and 3-4 week post-op was followed by clinic review at 6 and 12 weeks, to assess the timescale of leg pain resolution and improvement in function (ODI score). Results. Immediately before discharge from hospital 67% patients reported relief of leg pain. 33% reported no relief or were unsure. Of these, 26 (80%) reported pain relief subsequently. At 1-2 weeks, 81 patients reported pain relief. 14 reported persistent pain, but six of them (45%) improved subsequently. By six weeks 91% reported leg pain relief and only two of the unimproved nine patients subsequently experienced relief of leg pain. Failure to improve the leg pain was clearly associated with failure to improve disability by ODI score. But the ODI score did not improve in 11 patients reporting relief of leg pain. Decompression in older age and women had a relatively higher risk of poor result. Conclusion. After lumbar discectomy and decompression, leg pain relief is immediate in 67%, in 81% by one week and in 91% by six weeks. Improvement is unlikely after this period. Non-resolution of leg pain resulted in persistent/worsened disability, but 11% patients did not improve functionally despite experiencing leg pain relief. Decompression, older age and female sex were negative risk factors

Introduction and Objective. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of LIA compared to ACB in providing pain relief and reducing opiates usage in hamstring graft ACL reconstructions. Materials and Methods. In a consecutive series of hamstring graft ACL reconstructions, patients received three different regional and/or anaesthetic techniques for pain relief. Three groups were studied: group 1: general anaesthetic (GA)+ ACB (n=38); group 2: GA + ACB + LIA (n=31) and group 3: GA+LIA (n=36). ACB was given under ultrasound guidance. LIA involved infiltration at skin incision site, capsule, periosteum and in the hamstring harvest tunnel. Analgesic medications were similar between the three groups as per standard multimodal analgesia (MMA). Patients were similar in demographics distribution and surgical technique. The postoperative pain and total morphine requirements were evaluated and recorded. The postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analogue scores (VAS) at 0hrs, 2hrs, 4hrs, weight bearing (WB) and discharge (DC). Results. There was no statistically significant difference in opiates intake amongst the three groups. When comparing VAS scores; there were no statistical difference between the groups at any of the time intervals that VAS was measured. However, the GA+LIA group hospital's LOS (m=2.31hrs, SD=0.75) was almost half that of GA+ACB group (m=4.24hrs, SD=1.08); (conditions t(72)=8.88; p=0.000). There was no statistical significance in the incidence of adverse effects amongst the groups. Conclusions. The LIA technique provided equally good pain relief following hamstring graft ACL reconstructions when compared to ACB, while allowing for earlier rehabilitation, mobilisation and discharge

Purpose of the study. The aims of the study were to explore the experiences of sciatica sufferers, their perceptions of physiotherapy and healthcare service provision. Methods. This was the qualitative element of a mixed methods study investigating the feasibility of early physiotherapy for sciatica. Participants in the pilot trial consented to take part in semi-structured interviews before and after they had undertaken an individualised physiotherapy programme. Data from the interviews was examined line by line using a thematic analysis approach with key themes and sub-themes emerging. Results. Thirty-three participants were recruited and a total of 45 interviews being carried out. 7 central themes and 17 sub-themes were generated from thematic analysis. The first-line treatment administered to all participants by their G.P was a combination of analgesia. The drugs used included paracetamol, ibuprofen, nefopam, diclofenac, tramadol, morphine, diazepam and baclofen. Neuropathic pain modulating medication such as amitriptyline, gabapentin or pregabalin was widely used. Participants reported that medication simply didn't provide sufficient pain relief at a dose where side-effects were acceptable. Twenty-four interviewees described the negative side-effects of the drugs including nausea, dizziness, confusion, constipation, drowsiness, impotence and bloating. Furthermore, participants were concerned about their ability to carry out normal day to day tasks such as childcare, work and driving due to the side-effects of the drugs. Conclusion. Sciatica can be all encompassing, with severe pain and disability. A range of medication is commonly used for pain relief. The results from this study suggest that the drugs don't provide significant pain relief without deleterious side-effects in some patients. No conflicts of interest for any authors. Sources of funding: MR is the recipient of a HEE/NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship which funded the study

Introduction. In rheumatoid arthritis, the forefoot is frequently affected. A variety of surgical procedures have been established in the treatment of rheumatic forefoot disorders. Postoperatively, patients are mobilized in specially designed footwear to reduce forefoot stress. Our study was conducted to investigate peak and mean plantar pressure occurring in two differently designed forefoot relief shoes by using the novel pedar ® system. Materials and Methods. Ten symptom-free volunteers were asked to walk on a treatmill, performing two trials at self-selected speed. The ”Barouk” (sole and heel supporting proximal fifty percent of the foot) and “Hannover” (Sole under whole foot, heel supporting proximal fifty percent of the foot) forefoot relief shoe (fior and gentz, Lueneburg, Germany) were compared. In a first trial, the shoe had to be used adequately, while in a second trial, the volunteers tried to put pressure on the forefoot, mimicking non-compliance. Peak and mean plantar pressure were obtained using the pedar® cable system (novel, Munich) and compared to the contralateral foot. Statistical t-test analysis was performed using SPSS 10. 0 for windows™. Results. When wearing the “Barouk” shoe with short sole, the forefoot was completely relieved in all trials. Non-compliant use of the shoe did not result in any forefoot stress. At the edge of the sole, peak pressure values were not higher than in conventional footwear. The shoework with complete sole reduced forefoot peak and mean pressure in contrast to normal gait by a mean of 34 percent. However, all volunteers were able to put stress on the forefoot when mimicking non-compliance, reaching peak values similar to normal gait. Conclusion. With regard to reconstructive forefoot surgery, the design of forefoot relief shoework affects the safety to non-compliance

Aim. The primary aim of this pilot study was to assess and evaluate the SpineCor Pain Relief Brace as a method of reducing the pain experienced by patients diagnosed with degenerative scoliosis. Method. Participants (n=24) with an average age of 67 (+/− 8) old that fulfilled the study inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into either a treatment or control group. Both sets of participants received questionnaires (ODI, SF 36v2 and EQ5D-5L) at 1,3,6,9 and 18 months. In addition to the questionnaires the treatment group also received the SpineCor Pain Relief Brace and took part in a semi structured interview. Results. The results from the trial were mixed; repeated measures analysis on the quantitative data showed the brace had a small effect on reducing reported pain and increasing activity. Results from the semi-structured interviews were more informative. Analysis revealed the brace enabled patients' to participate in activities at a higher intensity. Problems with the functionality of the brace such as toileting that ultimately limited the amount of time they could wear the brace were also identified. Conclusion. Overall, mild pain relief and improvements in functionality and activity levels were reported in addition to several functional problems with the brace. These problems could be attributed to the average age of the participants. No prior work has examined issues related to wearing a brace from the patient perspective. Further work is needed to develop a better understanding of the benefits and limitations of bracing for Degenerative scoliosis. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Impact relief ability of Metal-on-Metal artificial hip joint with multi-garter spring using drop impact tester for practical use. Toshiaki Kaneeda, Xinming Zhao and Hiroshi Matsuura. Metal-on-metal (MoM) joints can provide better wear properties than hard-on-polymer joints, leading to reducing osteolysis. However during gait, MoM hip joints have no material to relieve impact. These impacts can cause severe pain in postoperative patients. Kaneeda proposed double-shell MoM artificial hip joints in which multi garter springs were inserted between the inner and outer acetabular shell as an impact relief device. The proposed double-shell metal-on-metal artificial hip joint is composed of two layers, as shown in Fig. 11). A garter spring is usually used when by loading and a compression stress from the outside to the center axis. In the model testing for garter spring, it is demonstrated that garter spring had impact relief ability, then using dual garter springs could lead to better impact relief ability than single one2). In this work, the impact relief ability of model hip joint were investigated by using the Instron CEAST 9340 machine as shown in Fig. 2. The machine is a floor standing impact system designed to deliver 0.30–405J of energy and equipped with precise locating system for height. A holding device of double-shell cup was made to fix the right position. A shape of drop impact weight was modified for this experiment. The model hip joint was applied vertical load over 6000N, which is estimated to be equal to maximum vertical load during jumping. The ability in the case of single garter spring and dual garter springs was evaluated in the model hip joint, comparing with UHMWPE liner in the same size of femur head. Each testing was conducted 10 times. Fig. 3 shows load-time curve detected. From the results, it can be seen that in both case Load L gradually rise with Time T, then reach maximum values, finally L gently drop: maximum impact load as well as maximum impact load arriving time also presented nearly the same values. Much differences in shape of the curve between model hip joint with dual garter springs and UHMWPE liner could not be recognized. The model hip joint with dual garter springs may has enough impact relief ability

Artificial joints have been increasingly used in the treatment of physically disabled people who suffer from joint diseases such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) is commonly used in hard-on-polymer joints as an impact-absorbing material for artificial hip joints because of its very low friction coefficient, high wear resistance, impact strength, and biocompatibility. However, particles generated by excessive wear and fatigue can cause osteolysis, which may lead to loosening. This has led to recent interest in metal-on-metal joints, which can provide better wear properties than hard-on-polymer joints, leading to reduced osteolysis. However, during gait, metal-on-metal joints are exposed to greater impacts than hard-on-polymer joints. These impacts can cause severe pain in patients who have undergone hip replacement arthroplasty. In previous work, we proposed a double-shell metal-on-metal artificial hip joint in which a single garter spring was inserted between the inner and outer acetabular shell of an impact relief device[1]. A garter spring is usually used by loading a compression stress from the outside to the center axis. The acetabular shell is composed of two layers as shown in Fig.1. In the current work, the performance of single and dual garter springs was investigated using static compression and free-fall type impact tests. Static compression tests were conducted on a conventional vise to examine the deformation of various kinds of garter springs under uniaxial loading. Free-fall impact tests, on the other hand, were conducted on a free-fall type impact test machine as shown in Fig. 2. The impact relief ability of the garter springs under impact loading was examined, and the maximum impact load and maximum impact load arriving-time were estimated[2]. The relief ability was also investigated for smaller and larger diameter garter springs with a three-pitch angle, and the maximum applied load was determined by taking into account the applied load on actual hip joints. Static compression test results indicated that some kinds of garter spring could withstand vertical loads of over 6000N, which is estimated to be equal to maximum vertical load during jumping. The pitch angle increased with an increase in the compression load and the shape of the coil ring deformed from a circular to ellipsoidal shape as the compression load increased, which may lead to a reduction in impact load and an increase in impact relief time. The impact test results for a single spring indicated that the maximum impact load decreased in reverse proportion to the maximum impact load arriving-time. A smaller diameter garter spring provided less maximum impact load and longer arriving maximum load time. In the case of dual garter springs, which have smaller and larger diameter garter springs, the springs offered a lower maximum impact load and a longer impact load arriving-time than a single spring

The aim was to assess the effect of caudal block on patients who have had proximal femoral &/or pelvic osteotomy compared to patients who have had epidural anaesthesia with regards to pain relief and hospital stay. We looked at two patient cohorts; epidural & caudal pain relief in aforementioned procedures. Interrogation of our clinical database (WinDip, BlueSpeir&clinical notes) identified 57 patients: 33 proximal femoral osteotomy, 13 pelvic osteotomy and 11 combined(25 Males 32 Females), aged 1–18 years-old between 2012–2014, in two institutions. A database of demographics, operative indications, associated procedures, analgesia and type of anaesthesia was constructed in relation to daily pain score and length of hospital stay. 39 patients had epidural anaesthesia, and 18 had caudal block. Cerebral palsy with unstable hips was the commonest indication(21), followed by dysplastic hip(10), Perthes disease(8) and other causes(18). The Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability(FLACC) scale was used to assess pain. Length of hospital stay in caudal block patients was 3.1 days(1–9), in epidural anaesthesia patients stay was 4.46 days(2–13). Paediatrics high dependency unit after an epidural was needed in 20(Average stay 3.4 days) compared to 1 who received caudal block. Caudal block FLACC pain score in the first 36 hours was 1.23(0–4) compared to 0.18(0–2) in patients who had an epidural. Caudal block is associated with less hospital stay and fewer admissions to the high dependency unit, it also provides adequate pain relief post osteotomies when compared to epidural, therefore could be performed at units lacking epidural facilities. A change in related practice however should be cautious and supported by further studies

The multimodal management of canal stenosis is increasing, and inhibitors of central sensitization are playing a crucial role in central sensitization processes. Pregabalin and gabapentin are antiepileptic drugs that reduce presynaptic excitability. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the use of pregabalin and gabapentin is effective in the symptomatic management of canal stenosis.

A literature search was conducted in four databases. The inclusion criteria were studies that compared pregabalin or gabapentin with a control group in lumbar canal stenosis. Randomized clinical trials and a comparative retrospective cohort study were included. The main clinical endpoints were VAS/NRS, ODI, and RDQ (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 4, 8 weeks, and 3 months, adverse events, and walking distance were also collected. Data were combined using Review Manager 5.4 software.

Six studies and 392 patients were included. The mean age was 60.25. No significant differences were observed in VAS at 2, 4, and 8 weeks: (MD: 0.23; 95% CI: −0.63-1.09), (MD: −0.04; 95% CI: −0.64 to −0.57), and (MD: −0.6; 95% CI: −1.22 to 0.02). Significant differences were observed in favor of pregabalin with respect to VAS at three months: (MD: −2.97; 95% CI: −3.43 to −2.51). No significant differences were observed in ODI (MD: −3.47; 95% CI: −7.15 to −0.21). Adverse events were significantly higher in the pregabalin/gabapentin group (OR 5.88, 95%CI 1.28-27.05). Walking distance and RDQ could not be compared, although the results were controversial.

Gabapentinoids have not been shown to be superior to other drugs used in the treatment of LSS or to placebo. However, they have shown a higher incidence of adverse effects, improved results in VAS at 3 months, and a slight improvement in ambulation at 4 months in combination with NSAIDs compared to NSAIDs in monotherapy.

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. Results. A total of 264 patients were recruited and data from 230 (88%) were available for the primary analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome measure of a visual analogue score for pain on the first post-operative day, prior to physiotherapy, was similar in both groups. The mean difference was -0.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.9 to 4.5; p = 0.834). The periarticular group used less morphine in the first post-operative day compared with the femoral nerve block group (74%, 95% CI 55 to 99). The femoral nerve block group reported 39 adverse events, of which 27 were serious, in 31 patients and the periarticular group reported 51 adverse events, of which 38 were serious, in 42 patients up to six weeks post-operatively. None of the adverse events were directly attributed to either of the interventions under investigation. Conclusion . Periarticular infiltration is a viable and safe alternative to femoral nerve block for the early post-operative relief of pain following TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:904–11

Between 1998 and 2007, fifteen patients with haemophilia A underwent 21 ankle arthrosco-pies+/− arthroscopic cheilectomy in order to attempt symptomatic relief of arthrosis and to increase the range of motion. All patients had severe degenerative changes radiologically. Perioperative management was shared with our local dedicated Haemophilia service and the management algorithm will be presented. Outcome data for pain and range of motion shows only moderate benefits. Two patients had good relief of symptoms for 6 months. Two patients however chose to return for arthroscopies to the contralateral ankle and two had arthoscopies to the same ankle. Follow up data is not currently available for 4 patients and the rest required fusion with a median time to fusion of 1 year. Two patients had a documented increased range of motion, but one of these patients had an increased level of pain associated with the increased mobility. There was 1 major complication, namely an aneurysm of the tibialis anterior artery. Two patients had recurrent bleeds following surgery requiring ongoing and prolonged factor VIII treatment. Average patient stay was 3.1 days, range 2 to 5 days and this stay is shorter for later years than earlier years. The post-operative requirement for extra factor VIII ranged from 4 postoperative doses to 3 weeks ongoing treatment, median 10 doses. The average cost per dose was approximately £1128, giving a median cost of £11280 per case. In summary, this procedure seems to be expensive in terms of QALY gains and has low rates of success in terms of function and pain relief

Introduction: We present the results of a controlled randomized trial of the use of a popliteal block for pain relief in ankle and hindfoot surgery. Materials and methods: We studied 47 patients over period of nine months in 2007 to 2008. Patients undergoing an ankle or hindfoot procedure were included in the trial. The trial was explained to the patients. Written information leaflets were also used in the preoperative clinics. Patients were randomized on the day of surgery. A sealed envelope randomizing the patient to block (A), or no block (B) was opened in the anaesthetic room before the patient was anaesthetised. Patients were subjective pain scores were recorded at 30 min, 6, 12 and 24 hours after surgery. The amount of analgesia required and time to first dose was documented. One foot and ankle consultant and one trained fellow gave the popliteal blocks. The block was administered in the lateral position at 0.8 mAmp stimulus to detect the nerve. Group A and B data was compared statistically. Results: The average pain scores in group A were reported to be 1.2 at 30min, 1.23 at 6, 2.1 at 12 and 3 at 24 hours. In group B it was 1.2 at 30min, 7.2, 8.1 and 4 at 6, 12 and 24 hours. There was a statistical significant difference in the pain scores at 6 and 12 hours. There was no statistical significant difference in the pain scores at 30 min and 24 hours. Conclusion: Popliteal block gives effective pain relief in ankle and hindfoot surgery. We believe that it may reduce anaesthetic and analgesic drug requirement as well

Introduction. We hereby present results of controlled randomized trial of use of popliteal block for pain relief in ankle and hind foot surgery. Materials and methods. We have studied 63 patients over period of 9 months. Patients who needed ankle or hind foot procedure were selected for trial. Patients were explained about the trial and popliteal block along with leaflets at preoperative clinics. Patients were randomized on the day of surgery. A sealed envelop stating whether patient will go to block group (A) or no block group (B) was opened in the anaesthetic room before the patient was anaesthetized. Patients were evaluated for subjective pain scores at 30 min, 6 hrs, 12 hrs and 24 hrs after surgery. Amount of anaelgesic required and time to first dose was documented. Popliteal blocks were given by one foot and ankle consultant and one trained fellow. The block was administered in lateral position at 0.8 mA stimulus to detect the nerve. The data was compared statistically between group A and B. Results. The average pain scores in Group A (33 pts) were 0.72, 1.60, 1.51 and 1.03 at 30 min, 6 hrs, 12 hrs and 24 hrs respectively. While in Group B (30 pts) it was 2.73, 5.5, 6.03 and 3.33 at 30 min, 6 hrs, 12 hrs and 24 hrs respectively. There was statistically significant difference in pain scores at 6 and 12 hrs. There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores at 30 min and 24 hrs. Time to the request for first analgesic was statistically longer in Group A. Conclusion. Popliteal block offers an effective way of pain relief in ankle and hind foot surgery. We believe that it may reduce amount of anaesthetic or anaelgesic drug requirement as well

Introduction. Large diameter femoral heads provide increased range-of-motion and reduced dislocation rates compared to smaller diameter femoral heads. However, several recent studies have reported that contemporary large head prostheses can directly impinge against the local soft tissues leading to anterior hip pain. To address this we developed a novel Anatomically Contoured large diameter femoral Head (ACH) that maintains the profile of a large diameter femoral head over a hemispherical portion and then contours inward the distal profile of the head for soft-tissue relief. We hypothesized that the distal contouring of the ACH articular surface would not affect contact area. The impact of component placement, femoral head to acetabular liner radial clearance, and joint loading during different activities was investigated. Methods. A finite element model was used to assess the femoroacetabular contact area of a 36 mm diameter conventional head and a 36 mm ACH (Fig. 1). It included a rigid acetabular shell, plastically deformable UHMWPE acetabular liner, rigid femoral head and rigid femoral stem. The femoral stem was placed at 0°, 10° and 20° of anteversion. The acetabular shell and liner were placed in 20°, 40° and 60° of abduction and 0°, 20° and 40° of anteversion. The femoral head to acetabular liner radial clearances modeled were 0.06 mm, 0.13 mm and 0.5 mm. Three loading cases corresponding to peak in vivo loads during walking, chair sit and deep-knee bend were analyzed (Fig. 2). This allowed a range of component positions and maximum joint loads to be studied. Results. Under all tested conditions there was no difference between the two implants (Fig. 3). The contact area for both prosthesis depended on the radial clearance between the head and liner. The conventional head contact area (standard deviation) in mm. 2. for 0.5 mm, 0.13 mm and 0.06 mm of radial clearance was 230.5 (70.2), 419.8 (48.7) and 575.4 (60.1) respectively. Similarly, for the ACH these were 230.5 (70.4), 420.1 (48.7) and 575.9 (59.4). The average data for a head and radial clearance combination included all component placements and load conditions completed. A student T-Test (p = 0.05) confirmed that the ACH had the same contact area as the conventional head for all radial clearances. Conclusion. This study showed that, as intended, an anatomically contoured large diameter femoral head designed to provide soft-tissue relief maintained the load bearing articular contact area of a conventional implant. The novel ACH prosthesis could mitigate the risk of soft-tissue impingement with contemporary large head implants while retaining their benefits of additional stability and range-of-motion

Introduction. Dual mobility (DM) implants provide increased stability and range-of-motion through the use of a large diameter mobile liner articulating against an acetabular shell. However, recent studies have reported that such contemporary large head prostheses can directly impinge against the local soft tissues leading to anterior hip pain. To address this drawback, a novel Anatomically Contoured Dual Mobility (ACDM) liner was developed that maintains the outer spherical geometry over an approximately hemispherical portion and then contours inward the distal profile of the DM liner for soft-tissue relief. The extent of the inner profile encapsulating the small diameter head is increased to provide more coverage of the head and maintain the inner head pullout force. We hypothesized that the ACDM liner for soft-tissue relief would not affect retention of the small diameter inner head or liner-acetabular load-bearing contact area. Methods. A finite element model to evaluate head retention and contact mechanics was created with a rigid acetabular shell, a plastically deformable UHMWPE DM liner, a rigid femoral head and a rigid femoral stem. For the head retention analysis, the extent of head coverage (Fig. 1) was optimized to match the inner head pullout force of a conventional DM liner. Contact mechanics of a conventional DM and ACDM liner were analyzed at the maximum joint load of three activities: gait, deep-knee bend and chair sit. One set of simulations was completed with the mobile liner and head axes aligned and another with the axes mal-aligned so that the mobile liner rim was adjacent to the femoral stem neck and the potential area of contact was away from the mobile liner apex. This allowed a broader range of potential contact to be assessed including what was determined to be a worst-case alignment. Results. The head extraction force of the conventional mobile liner with 224° of coverage was 909 N (Fig. 2). The ACDM liner with 232° of head coverage and an 8 mm reduced radius had an inner head extraction force of 901 N. The contact simulation results were practically identical for the ACDM liner and the conventional DM liner. Contact stresses between the two designs differed by less than 3.6%. In most cases, contact area (Fig. 3) was virtually equal with a slightly higher contact area in the ACDM (∼6.3%). In two of three worst-case liner orientations, the contact area between the shell and liner was found to be slightly lower for the ACDM liner (∼15%). The contact area and its distribution in all cases were found to be sufficient. Conclusion. This study showed that the novel anatomically contoured dual mobility liner maintains adequate inner head retention and articular contact area. The ACDM liner matched the head retention capacity of the conventional DM by slightly increasing the coverage of the inner head. The ACDM articular contact area was comparable to that of a conventional DM and satisfactory in all cases. These results demonstrate that a soft-tissue friendly design can be achieved while providing adequate head retention and load-bearing contact area