Certain acetabular fractures involve impaction of the weight-bearing dome and medialisation of the femoral head. Intra-operative fracture reduction is made easier by traction on the limb, ideally in line with the femoral neck (lateral traction). However, holding this lateral traction throughout surgery is very difficult for a tiring assistant.

We detail a previously undescribed technique of providing intra-operative lateral femoral head traction via a pelvic reduction frame, to aid fixation of difficult acetabular fractures. The first 10 consecutive cases are reviewed (Group 1) and compared with a retrospective control (Group 2, n=18) of case-matched patients, treated prior to introducing the technique. The post-operative X-rays and CT scans were assessed to identify quality of fracture reduction according to the criteria of Tornetta and Matta. Operative time, blood loss and early complication rates were also compared.

All cases in both groups were acute injuries with medial and/or superior migration of the femoral head. The majority were either associated both column or anterior column posterior hemi-transverse. There was no statistical difference between the groups in age, time to surgery, BMI or ASA grade.

Fracture reduction was assessed as excellent in seven, good in three and poor in one. This was not significantly different from the control group (p=0.093). The mean operative time was 232 minutes in Group 1 and 332.78 minutes in Group 2 (p = 0.0015). There was no difference between the groups for blood loss or complication rates.

We conclude that this new technique is at least equivalent to using manual traction and early results suggest it reduces operative time and technical difficulty in treating these complex acetabular fractures.

We present a series of 16 patients who have had a failed ankle arthroplasty converted to an ankle arthrodesis using a surgical technique of bone grafting with internal fixation. We describe our technique using tricortical autograft from the iliac crest to preserve length and an emphasis is placed on maintaining the malleoli and subtalar joint.

A successful fusion was achieved in all cases with few complications. Our post operative AOFAS improved to a mean of 70 with good patient satisfaction and compares well to other published series. From this series and an extensive review of the literature we have found fusion rates following failed arthroplasty in patients with degenerative arthritis to be very high. In this group of patients a high fusion rate and good clinical result can be achieved when the principles of this surgical technique are adhered to.

It would appear that a distinction should be made between treating patients with poor quality bone and more extensive bone loss, as is often the case with rheumatoid patients; and the patients with a non inflammatory arthropathy and better bone quality. The intramedullary nail would appear to be the preferred option in patients with inflammatory polyarthropathy where preservation of the subtalar joint is probably not of relevance as it is usually extensively involved in the disease process, and a higher rate of complications can be anticipated with internal fixation.

Objective: This study compares the results obtained from arthrolysis of the elbow performed arthroscopically with those done open.

Material and Methods: 139 patients from 3 hospitals, who had undergone an arthrolysis of their elbow, were studied retrospectively. 58 had an arthroscopic arthrolysis and 81 were open. The patients included were aged between 18 and 65, had a loss of passive range of motion, due to either osteoarthritis or post trauma. Patients with previous extra articular osteotomy, septic or inflammatory synovitis were excluded. The clinical evaluation comprised measuring their: range of motion, pain, level of activities, presence of effusion or locking. The images obtained were standard radiographs, CT scan and bone scans to allow us to accurately determine the presence of loose bodies, fibrous tissue in the fossae, the presence of osteophytes or arthritis. All data was recorded in preoperative, postoperative and final assessment.

This study also discusses various issues regarding operative techniques (surgical approaches, debridement of joint and capsular releases).

Results: The two groups were similar on all points with the exception of their aetiologies. There was no clinical difference preoperatively. The arthroscopy was performed through 4 portals in 94% of cases; in the open cases the most common approach was lateral (53%). Intra operatively the significant differences were the removal of posterior osteophytes and capsular releases (p< 0.001) were performed more frequently in the open procedure. At the end of the procedure, the flexion and the gain in flexion-extension range was greater in the arthrotomy group; however the arthroscopic group lost less motion from end of procedure to the final result (8 versus 17 degrees). At the last review, the gain in range of motion remained greater in the group with the open arthrotomy. The number of complications in the 2 groups was identical, though the location of any nerve injury was different. The method of rehabilitation was the same; however this was continued for longer in the arthroscopic group. Final radiographic assessment showed that a less extensive debridement of bone was achieved arthroscopically.

Conclusion: A more extensive release and an easier intra operative evaluation resulting in a better improvement in range of motion at the end of procedure are achieved with arthrotomy. The subsequent loss of motion is more significant in this group however the final outcome showed the gain in range of motion remained greater. It was noted however, that even with less improvement in mobility, with either technique, the patients were equally satisfied.