To describe the prevalence and incidence of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation during the patient journey for patients admitted to orthopaedic and trauma wards, we carried out a prospective audit at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust, England.

The Study Population comprised patients admitted to the trauma and elective orthopaedic wards, with an expected stay of 48 hours or more between March and May 2003.

Patients were swabbed for MRSA colonisation on ward admission, transfer to another ward and discharge from hospital. Elective patients undergoing major joint surgery were also swabbed at a pre-operative assessment clinic. Colonised patients were treated depending on individual risk assessment.

Five hundred and fifty-nine eligible patients were admitted to hospital. Of these, 323 (101 elective, 192 trauma and 30 non-orthopaedic) patients were included in the study, of whom 28 elective patients (28%), 43 trauma patients (22%), and seven non-orthopaedic patients (23%) were colonised with MRSA at any time during the audit period. Of the 80 patients identified as negative for MRSA colonisation at pre-assessment screening and included in the audit, ten (9.5%) were found to be colonised on admission.

There is a high prevalence of MRSA colonisation in patients admitted to the orthopaedic and trauma wards in our setting. A policy of pre-admission screening, though able to identify MRSA carriage does not guarantee that patients are not colonised in the period between screening and admission. Consideration should be given to screening all patients for MRSA who are admitted to an orthopaedic ward.

Introduction

Fifty thousand knee replacements are performed annually in the UK at an estimated cost of £150 million. However, there is uncertainty as to the best surgical approach to the knee joint for knee arthroplasty. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare a standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy with sub-vastus arthrotomy for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of short and long term knee function.

Orthopaedic surgeons vary in their surgical approaches to total knee arthroplasty. The aim of this investigation was to compare outcomes after two different surgical approaches. The study was a prospective single-centre longitudinal randomized controlled trial. A sub-vastus approach was compared with a medial para-patellar approach. Participating surgeons elected to randomize their patients to one of the two types of approach. Outcomes included the Knee Society (KS) Clinical Rating System, WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, SF-36, and EuroQol (measured at 1, 6, 12 and 52 weeks post-operatively compared to baseline) complications, surgeon rated ease of exposure, and proportion of patients who had a lateral release.

Two hundred and thirty one patients were randomized to the two approaches. One hundred and sixteen patients were randomized to the sub-vastus approach. At one week compared to baseline, range of motion, KS global, KS knee, and KS pain scores were significantly better in the sub-vastus group. At six weeks, the medial para-patellar group tended to have better outcomes, but not statistically significantly. At fifty-two weeks compared to baseline, the WOMAC global and pain scores, the SF36 physical function and role-physical scores, and the EuroQol utility and pain score were significantly better in the sub-vastus group. Surgeons reported the ease of exposure in the sub-vastus group was significantly worse on average.

This trial is the largest of its kind to date, and the first, so far as we are aware, to compare clinical outcomes of different surgical approaches at one year post-operatively. The sub-vastus approach to total knee arthroplasty was more effective than a medial para-patellar approach at both one week and fifty-two weeks post-operatively in patients whose surgeons considered either approach would be suitable. However, surgeons reported worse ease of exposure in the sub-vastus group.

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed–4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ2=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.

Introduction: Fifty thousand knee replacements are performed annually in the UK at an estimated cost of £150 million. However, there is uncertainty as to the best surgical approach to the knee joint for knee arthroplasty. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare a standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy with sub-vastus arthrotomy for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of short and long term knee function.

Methods: Two-hundred and thirty-one patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty during 2001–2003 were recruited into the study. Patients were randomised into subvastus (116) or medial parapatellar (115) approaches to knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome measures were the American Knee Society and WOMAC Scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient based measures of EuroQol and SF-36. All outcomes were measured pre-operatively, 1, 6, 12 and 52 weeks post-operatively. We also looked at a pain diary, analgesia diary, ease of surgical exposure, and complications.

Results: Pain as measured by WOMAC was significantly less in the subvastus group but only at 52 weeks. The Knee Society Score showed some early benefit at one week to the subvastus group. There was no difference between the two groups in relation to the knee function score, EuroQol, SF-36, pain diary, analgesia usage and length of hospital stay.

Conclusion: There is some benefit to patients receiving sub-vastus arthrotomy relative to medial para-patellar. Although the results show some statistical significance in using the sub-vastus approach the clinical importance of these findings and the costs of the various procedures involved remain to be ascertained.

Introduction: Fifty thousand knee replacements are performed annually in the UK at an estimated cost of £150 million. However, there is uncertainty as to the best surgical approach to the knee joint for knee arthroplasty. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare a standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy with sub-vastus arthrotomy for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of short and long term knee function.

Methods: Two-hundred and thirty-one patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty during 2001–2003 were recruited into the study. Patients were randomised into subvastus (116) or medial parapatellar (115) approaches to knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome measures were the American Knee Society and WOMAC Scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient based measures of EuroQol and SF-36. All outcomes were measured pre-operatively, 1, 6, 12 and 52 weeks post-operatively. We also looked at a pain diary, analgesia diary, ease of surgical exposure, and complications.

Results: Pain as measured by WOMAC was significantly less in the subvastus group but only at 52 weeks. The Knee Society Score showed some early benefit at one week to the subvastus group. There was no difference between the two groups in relation to the knee function score, EuroQol, SF-36, pain diary, analgesia usage and length of hospital stay

Conclusion: There is some benefit to patients receiving sub-vastus arthrotomy relative to medial para-patellar. Although the results show some statistical significance in using the sub-vastus approach the clinical importance of these findings and the costs of the various procedures involved remain to be ascertained.

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed −4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ²=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.

Objective: To describe the prevalence and incidence of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation in patients in the Trauma and Orthopaedic wards of the University Hospital of North Staffordshire.

Design Prospective audit.

Patients and methods: Over a three month period from 1st March to 31st May 2003 359 patients attending the elective orthopaedic outpatient department for major joint surgery were screened at the pre-operative assessment clinic; 105 of these patients were screened again on the elective orthopaedic wards. 197 patients were screened on the trauma wards. 31 patients of other/outlying specialities were screened. Patients whose stay was expected to be for 48 hours or more were included in the audit. Patients were screened for MRSA colonization on admission, transfer and discharge. Colonised patients were treated according to the local infection control policy.

Results: 31 elective orthopaedic patients (29%); 46 trauma patients (23%) and 8 other/outlying patients (26%) were colonized with MRSA. On admission, 23 elective orthopaedic patients (22%), 32 trauma patients (16%), and 7 patients (23%) which were of other/outlying specialties were colonized with MRSA. 22 patients (6.6%) positive on admission, treated with eradication therapy, became negative on discharge. An additional 22 patients (6.6%) positive on admission became negative on discharge without receiving any treatment. During the audit period, 23 patients (6.9%) were negative for MRSA on admission and positive on discharge. 9 patients (39%) and 20 patients (62.5%) colonised in elective and trauma wards respectively, developed an MRSA infection, which required treatment.

Conclusion: There is a relatively high prevalence of MRSA colonisation in patients admitted to orthopaedic and trauma wards. A proportion (22%) of patients are colonised with MRSA in the short time between testing and admission. Not all patients positive for MRSA following admission to hospital will have been colonised within the nosocomial environment.

Purpose

To evaluate patient satisfaction and expectations of surgery following forefoot arthroplasty.

Methods

Between October 1993 and June 1999, forefoot arthroplasty (Kate/Kessel/Kay procedure) was performed or directly supervised by the senior author (D. McBride) in a cohort of 55 patients. All had inflammatory arthritis and had failed non-operative management. The clinical result was assessed using a self-administered patient satisfaction questionnaire. The questionnaire asked patients to rate their level of satisfaction in terms of pain relief, wound healing, stiffness and appearance. The patients expectations from the surgery in terms of their level of disability and the achievement of the operation in addition to their pain experience following their operation was assessed.

Results

Median time to follow-up was 41 months (range seven to seventy-seven). Forty-three of the 55 patients returned the completed questionnaire. The median age at operation of the respondents was 59 years (range 42 to 69) compared with 49 years (range 44 to 63) for the non-respondents. Of the 43 respondents, 30 were female and 13 male.

In terms of their expectations of the surgery, 20 (47%) stated that the operation had achieved what they had expected while 10 (23%) considered the operation to have achieved more than they had expected. The level of disability following their operation was as expected in 21 (49%), more than expected in 11 (26%) and less than expected in four (9%). 23 (55%) noted no change to their walking capacity while it had increased in 11 (26%) and decreased in eight (19%). There were two wound haematomas, five superficial wound infections and three cases of delayed wound healing which extended the post-operative hospital stay. Seventy-nine percent of patients however reported complete satisfaction with their wound healing. In those patients that had reported having had pain (n=31) at some time following their operation, two (7%) had experienced it for less than seven days, four (13%) for between one and four weeks, one (3%) for between one and three months and 23 (77%) for more than three months.

Conclusions

Overall patients were generally satisfied with their operation in terms of pain relief, wound healing and appearance. Additionally, in the majority of patients, the achievements of the procedure and the associated disability were as expected. Previous authors have outlined the various surgical factors, which are said to lead to a good outcome. Whilst it is important to bear these factors in mind we have found that some of our patients appeared to have a good result when these criteria were not met. While other patients meeting these criteria were not necessarily satisfied. This suggests areas for further research.