Introduction

This study evaluates the need for limb reconstruction surgery in Syria and gives examples of how this service has been delivered by UK surgeons. The conflict in Syria has resulted in over 500,000 deaths and 1.2 million injured. There is not yet a centre for limb reconstruction surgery in the country. Injuries from gunshots and shrapnel were not common prior to the civil war resulting in a paucity of experience.

Ankle fractures account for 10% of all fractures. Most deformed looking ankles are manipulated in the emergency departments (ED) on clinical judgement in order to improve the outcome and avoid skin complications. It is accepted that significantly displaced ankle injuries with neurovascular (NV) compromise or critical skin should be reduced prior to imaging.

However, is it really possible to understand the injury to an ankle without an x-ray or other imaging? The other possible injuries around the ankle, presenting with swelling and deformity of the ankle region, may include a ligamentous, talar, subtalar, Chopart joint or calcaneal injury. Does the risk of waiting for the imaging outweigh the benefit of manipulation of an undiagnosed injury?

This prospective study involved the analysis of all patients with ankle injuries referred to orthopaedics between November 2009 and February 2010. Results: Over the audited period 100 referrals were identified (43 male, 57 female). The average age was 50.4 years (range 5–89). Only 2% of fractures were open. Manipulation in the ED was performed for 44% of patients. Of these, 39% (17 cases) were manipulated and supported in plaster slab without an initial x-ray; 3 due to vascular deficit, 2 due to critical skin and 12 with no documented reason!

Re-manipulation in the ED as well as definitive open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were significantly lower in those patients who had an x-ray prior to manipulation (p < 0.05). ORIF was performed in 68% of all patients. Importantly, 80% of ankles manipulated in ED went on to have ORIF which was significantly higher than the 47% in the non-manipulation cohort (p < 0.05).

We conclude that taking ankle injury radiographs prior to any attempt at manipulation, in the absence of NV deficit or critical skin, will constitute best practice.

The aim of this study was to determine current practice in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction amongst BASK members. This was an internet-based survey where members were invited to complete a questionnaire on ACL reconstruction.

Of the 365 BASK surgeons performing ACL reconstruction, 241 completed the questionnaire (response rate 66%). 147(61%) of surgeons used both hamstring and patellar tendon grafts, 71(29%) used only hamstrings and 21(9%) used patellar tendon only. All surgeons used ipsilateral autograft.

157 (65%) used the transtibial technique for femoral tunnel placement with 80(33%) using the anteromedial portal technique. Of those using the anteromedial portal, the most common femoral fixation devices were the Endobutton (34%) and RCI screw (34%). Interference screw fixation (81%) was the most common tibial fixation in the same group of surgeons with the RCI screw being the most common (63%). 19% (45/241) of surgeons were performing double bundle ACL reconstructions in select cases.

Hamstring femoral fixation was with a suspension device in 79% and interference screw in 18%. Of those using a suspension device the Endobutton was most common (48%) followed by Transfix (26%) and Rigidfix (19%). Tibial fixation was most commonly achieved by interference screw (57%) followed by Intrafix (30%).

With patellar tendon graft the most popular femoral fixation was with an interference screw (66%) followed by suspension (34%). All surgeons used interference screw for tibial fixation.

90% of surgeons (217) allow immediate full weight-bearing as tolerated irrespective of fixation type with 8% delaying full weight bearing between 1 and 3 weeks. The results show the wide spread of variation in practice of ACL reconstruction. With recent renewed interest in a more anatomic placement of tunnels, the use of the anteromedial portal may continue to increase. With such a wide variation in techniques, grafts and fixation implants used, a register may help assess outcomes.

Current evidence on the indications for and efficacy of non-rigid lumbar stabilisation remains unclear. The aim of this study was to review the outcome of the DYNESYS system (Zimmer, Inc.) in a consecutive series of 34 patients undergoing this procedure between 2001 and 2006.

Prospectively collected outcome measure data obtained pre-operatively and at 1 year post-operatively was analysed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was performed using revision surgery as the end point. Cox Regression was utilised to identify variables that were related to implant survival.

Pain rating on the visual analogue scale improved from a mean of 7 pre-op to 4 at 1 year (p=0.009), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores from 13 to 9 (p=0.02), Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire from 13 to 9 (p=0.03). When reporting subjective outcome, 54% of patients reported “better” or “much better” outcomes at last followup (12–69 months post op). Eight patients (25%) required removal of the implant and conversion to fusion, one of whom had deep infection. Kaplan Meier survival analysis revealed a survival of 78% at 5 years (95% CI, 60 – 96%). Previous spinal surgery was significantly related to the time of survival of the implant (p=0.008).

Our study has demonstrated a high revision rate for this implant and 54% patient satisfaction. We recommend that patients be counseled regarding these risks and further use of this implant should be subject to the outcome of larger studies and randomised controlled trials.

Background: Distinguishing septic arthritis from transient synovitis of the hip in children can be both crucial and challenging. In 1999, Kocher et al suggested four clinical predictors, fever > 38.5°C, inability to weight bear, WBC count > 12.0x109/L, and ESR> 40mm/hr; that, when combined were highly predictive of septic arthritis in children (99.6%). This figure was challenged by Luhmann et al, stating that the clinical prediction did not exceed 59%. In 2006, Caird et al recommended adding CRP of > 20mg/L as a fifth predictor.

Aims: To assess the value and accuracy of clinical prediction algorithms in distinguishing septic arthritis from transient synovitis of the hip in children in our hospital.

Methods: A retrospective review of all children admitted to our institution with painful hips was carried out over a period of four years (Feb 2003 to Mar 2007). One-hundred and twenty-two admissions (115 patients, 7 re-admissions) were reviewed.

Results: 79 patients (64.8%) were males. The mean age was 6 years (9 months to 15 years).

86 patients (70.5%) were diagnosed with transient synovitis. All the 7 re-admissions were from this group. Only one of the re-admissions was diagnosed with confirmed septic arthritis.

4 patients (3.3%) were diagnosed with definite septic arthritis with positive cultures from the hip, and 1 (0.8%) with probable septic arthritis (negative culture).

The presence of the clinical predictors was compared between the transient synovitis and septic arthritis groups, using Fisher’s exact test. Only the raised temperature and CRP were found to be significantly different (p< 0.05).

Only two children (40%) with confirmed septic arthritis had four or more predictors (one had all five, and the other was able to partially weight bear). The third child had a raised temperature and CRP, and the fourth had a raised temperature only. The fifth patient (20%) was diagnosed with probable septic arthritis. His cultures were negative, but he was already on intravenous antibiotics. This patient did not have any of the predictors on admission (temperature was 38.3°C, CRP 10.7). However, he spiked a temperature of 40°C 24 hours post admission despite being on antibiotics, and his CRP increased to 34.5mg/L.

In the transient synovitis group, two patients (2.2%) had positive five predictors, but were proven to have transient synovitis secondary to a urinary tract infection and gastroenteritis. 47 patients (51.6%) did not have any of the predictors, and 6 patients (6.6%) had three or more positive predictors.

Conclusion: Although clinical predictors are helpful in distinguishing septic arthritis from transient synovitis, there were false negative and false positive findings in the study. The predictors cannot be considered alone, and ultimately clinical judgement must be exercised to ensure that cases of septic arthritis are not missed.

Introduction: Current evidence on the indications for and efficacy of non-rigid lumbar stabilisation remains unclear. The aim of this study was to review the results of this system in thirty four patients who underwent this procedure between 2002 and 2006.

Methods & Results: Validated outcome measures including Visual Analog Score (VAS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Modified Zung Score and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year post operatively. Subjective patient outcome (much better, better, same, worse) was assessed at final followup Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis was performed using need for revision surgery as endpoint. The indications for surgery in thirty patients was radicular pain and back pain, these patients underwent discectomy (12 patients) or decompression (18 patients) in addition to Dynesys. Two patients who had only back pain underwent Dynesys alone. There were statistically significant improvements in VAS, RMDQ, Modified Zung and MSPQ scores at 1 year. However at final followup 46% of patients had a unsatisfactory subjective patient outcome (worse or the same). 25% of patients required revision surgery (posterolateral fusion) for ongoing pain (seven patients) or infection (one patient).

Conclusion: We recommend that all patients undergoing this procedure are counselled regarding the high rate of revision surgery and patient dissatisfaction. Routine use of this implant should be subject to the findings of larger studies and randomised controlled trials.

Ethics approval: None

Interest Statement: None

Introduction: Current evidence on the indications for and efficacy of non-rigid lumbar stabilisation remains unclear. The aim of this study was to review the results of this system in thirty four patients who underwent this procedure between 2002 and 2006.

Methods & Results: Validated outcome measures including Visual Analog Score (VAS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Modified Zung Score and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year post operatively. Subjective patient outcome (much better, better, same, worse) was assessed at final followup Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis was performed using need for revision surgery as endpoint. The indications for surgery in thirty patients was radicular pain and back pain, these patients underwent discectomy (12 patients) or decompression (18 patients) in addition to Dynesys. Two patients who had only back pain underwent Dynesys alone. There were statistically significant improvements in VAS, RMDQ, Modified Zung and MSPQ scores at 1 year. However at final followup 46% of patients had a unsatisfactory subjective patient outcome (worse or the same). 25% of patients required revision surgery (posterolateral fusion) for ongoing pain (seven patients) or infection (one patient).

Conclusion: We recommend that all patients undergoing this procedure are counselled regarding the high rate of revision surgery and patient dissatisfaction. Routine use of this implant should be subject to the findings of larger studies and randomised controlled trials.