The primary aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of osteoid osteoma (OO) between the group of patients with the presence of nidus on biopsy samples from radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with those without nidus. Secondly, we aimed to examine other factors that may affect the outcomes of OO reflecting our experience as a tertiary orthopaedic oncology centre. We retrospectively reviewed 88 consecutive patients diagnosed with OO treated with RFA between November 2005 and March 2015, consisting of 63 males (72%) and 25 females (28%). Sixty-six patients (75%) had nidus present in their biopsy samples. Patients’ mean age was 17.6 years (4-53). Median duration of follow-up was 12.5 months (6-20.8). Lesions were located in the appendicular skeleton in seventy-nine patients (90%) while nine patients (10%) had an OO in the axial skeleton. Outcomes assessed were based on patients’ pain alleviation (partial, complete, or no pain improvement) and the need for further interventions. Pain improvement in the patient group with nidus in histology sample was significantly better than the group without nidus (OR 7.4, CI 1.35-41.4, p=0.021). The patient group with nidus on biopsy demonstrated less likelihood of having a repeat procedure compared to the group without nidus (OR 0.092, CI 0.016-0.542, p=0.008). Our study showed significantly better outcomes in pain improvement in appendicular lesions compared to the axially located lesions (p = 0.005). Patients with spinal lesions tend to have relatively poor pain relief than those with appendicular or pelvic lesions (p=0.007). Patients with nidus on histology had better pain alleviation compared to patients without nidus. The histological presence of nidus significantly reduces the chance of repeat interventions. The pain alleviation of OO following RFA is better in patients with appendicular lesions than spinal or axially located lesions.
Avulsion fractures of the base of the fifth metatarsal are some of the commonest foot injuries. The robust scientific evidence on the optimal non-operative treatment of these fractures is scant. We designed and conducted a prospective randomised non-inferiority controlled trial of symptomatic treatment versus cast immobilisation with the null hypothesis that cast immobilisation gave substantial benefit over the symptomatic treatment in terms of patient reported outcome measures(PROMs). The alternative hypothesis was that symptomatic treatment was not inferior. The primary outcome was the validated Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS FA) score ranging from 0 to 100. The non-inferiority boundary was set at −10 points. Power sizing determined a minimum of 12 patients per group. Anticipating a significant loss to follow up, 60 patients of 16 years of age or older were randomised to receive either below knee walking cast immobilisation (n = 24) or symptomatic double- elasticated bandage (n = 36) for 4 weeks. Secondary outcome measures were EuroQol-5D, and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scores. Data was analysed at the baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post injury by a clinician blinded to a treatment arm.Background
Methods
Patients suffering a distal femoral fracture are at a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Currently this cohort is not afforded the same resources as those with hip fractures. This study aims to compare their mortality rates and assess whether surgical intervention improves either outcome or mortality following distal femoral fractures. Patients over sixty-five admitted with a distal femoral fracture between June 2007 and 2012 were retrospectively identified. Patients mobility was categorised as unaided, walking aid, zimmer frame, or immobile. The 30-day, six-month, and one-year mortality rates were recorded for this group as well as for hip fractures during the same period.Background
Methods
