Parallel operating lists are a contentious subject. Many people feel that supervision, training and quality of patient care is negatively affected and consider this an outdated model in modern practice. Dual and parallel lists have been largely abandoned due to training committees' opinions that standards of orthopaedic training were being negatively affected. A new model of dual lists was implemented in a district general hospital as part of an arthroplasty service. The training impact was evaluated. Adjacent theatres were utilised for a single session. Two joint replacement surgeries were undertaken in each theatre. The sequential timing of the lists allowed the consultant to perform or supervise all of the operations in a consecutive manor. Staggering the start times allowed the consultant to approach and implant the first joint replacement, leaving the junior doctor or nurse practitioner to close the first operation and get the patient off the table while the consultant transferred to the adjoining theatre where the registrar had positioned, painted and draped the second patient, allowing the consultant to perform or supervise the second surgery. The process was then repeated until all four cases were performed. Evaluation of two registrar's elogbooks was undertaken and compared to the national average. During a twelve month period the trainees was involved in a mean of 72 joint replacement surgeries compared to a national average of 49. The trainees were the primary surgeon in a significantly higher number of operations compared to the national average. This model of sequential operating lists facilitated a service of high volume arthroplasty surgeries and significantly increased the exposure of the training registrar to joint replacements. Supervision of trainees was not significantly impacted. The model requires effective support services and a dedicated team of theatre staff, but can be very rewarding for consultant surgeon and trainee alike.
We present a biomechanical cadaveric study investigating the effect of type II Superior Labrum Anterior Posterior (SLAP) lesions on the load-deformation properties of the Long Head of Biceps (LHB) and labral complex. We also report our assessment of whether repair of the type II SLAP lesion restored normal biomechanical properties to the superior labral complex. Using a servo-controlled hydraulic material testing system (Bionix MTS 858, Minneapolis, MA), we compared the load-deformation properties of the LHB tendon with: the LHB anchor intact; a type II SLAP lesion present; following repair with two different suture techniques (mattress versus ‘over-the-top’ sutures). Seven fresh-frozen, cadaveric, human scapulae were tested. We found that the introduction of a type II SLAP lesion significantly increased the toe region of the load deformation curve compared to the labral complex with an intact LHB anchor. The repair techniques restored the stiffness of the intact LHB but failed to reproduce the normal load versus displacement profile of the labral complex with an intact LHB anchor. Of the two suture techniques, the mattress suture best restored the normal biomechanics of the labral complex. We conclude that a type II SLAP lesion significantly alters the biomechanical properties of the LHB tendon. Repair of the SLAP lesion only partially restores the biomechanical properties. We hypothesise that repairs of type II SLAP lesions may fail at loads as low as 150N, hence the LHB should be protected following surgery.
Primary TKR:
At 6 weeks: Correlation for OKS and pain, OKS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.782, 0.736 and 0.796 respectively (p<
0.001) At 6 months: Correlation for OKS and pain, OKS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.718, 0.749 and 0.767 respectively (p<
0.001) At 1 year: Correlation for OKS and pain, OKS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.7, 0.703 and 0.793 respectively (p<
0.001) Primary THR: At 6 weeks: Correlation for OHS and pain, OHS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.361, 0.309 and 0.477 respectively (p<
0.001) At 6 months: Correlation for OHS and pain, OHS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.596, 0.673 and 0.635 respectively (p<
0.001) At 1 year: Correlation for OHS and pain, OHS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.682, 0.636 and 0.862 respectively (p<
0.001)
Midvastus (MV) vs Medial Parapatellar (MPP) approach: Quadriceps function in the early post operative period was better preserved in the MV group. Post operative pain, blood loss and the need for LRR tended to be lower in the MV group. Subvastus (SV) vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function was better preserved in the SV group up to 3 months post operatively. ROM was generally greater up until the 4 week time point. Post operative pain and blood loss was lower in the SV group. Midvastus vs Subvastus approach: The SV group suffered with significantly more pain at six months post operatively. Quadriceps-sparing versus Medial Parapatellar Approach: Significantly longer operative times and more complications were noted in the QS group. Modified ‘Quadriceps sparing’ Medial Parapatellar vs Mini-Subvastus (MSV) approach: A tendency for earlier restoration of SLR and better early ROM was noted in the MSV group.
MIS tends to result in an improved early quadriceps function and decreased blood loss. However, these approaches are technically more demanding, result in longer operative times and provide no long-term benefit. There is concern that they result in a greater number of major complications and risk implant mal-alignment. Eversion of the patella seems to correlate with poor quadriceps function.
Midvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function in the early post operative period was better preserved in the MV group. Post operative pain, blood loss and the need for LRR tended to be lower in the MV group. There was no difference in ROM, hospital stay, knee scores, complications or radiological alignment. Subvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function was better preserved in the SV group up to 3 months post operatively. ROM was generally greater up to the 4 week time point. Post operative pain and blood loss was lower in the SV group. There was no difference in operative/tourniquet time, hospital stay, rate of LRR, or complications. Modified “Quadriceps sparing” Medial Parapatellar vs Mini-Subvastus (MSV) approach: A tendency for earlier restoration of SLR and better early ROM was noted in the MSV group. Midvastus vs Subvastus approach: The SV group suffered with significantly more pain at six months post operatively.