Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 560 - 560
1 Aug 2008
Kamat YD Aurakzai K Kalairajah Y Riordan J Field RE Adhikari AR
Full Access

Obesity [Body Mass Index (BMI) > 30kg/m2] is seen in a growing percentage of patients seeking joint replacement surgery. Operations in obese patients take longer and present certain technical difficulties. Computer navigation improves consistency of prosthetic component alignment but increases operation time.

Our aims were

to compare tourniquet times of non-obese with obese patients having knee replacement using standard instruments or computer navigation and

to evaluate the change in tourniquet time as the surgeon gained experience over a three year period.

A retrospective analysis of 232 total knee replacement (TKR) operations performed by a single knee surgeon over a three year period was carried out. Similar knee prostheses (Plus Orthopedics, UK) were used in all cases. Variables to be assessed were the operative technique (computer navigation assisted or standard instruments) and BMI of patients.

Of the 232 knees, 117 were performed using computer navigation and 115 with standard instruments. Each of the groups was subdivided as per BMI to differentiate obese patients (BMI > 30) from the non-obese. Tourniquet times of surgery were used for comparison amongst the subgroups.

There were 56 and 59 patients in the non-obese and obese subgroups respectively within the standard TKR group. The average tourniquet times for these were 79.3 and 86.3 minutes respectively. This was a significant difference (p=0.037). Correspondingly in the computer navigated group, there were 60 non-obese and 57 obese patients. Their tourniquet times were 105.4 and 100.5 minutes respectively. This difference was not significant (p=0.15)

The obese patients in each group were then studied separately and divided into three equally sized subgroups in chronological order. Each sub-group comprised 19 standard TKRs and 19 computer navigated TKRs. Tourniquet times of operations were compared within each sub-group. P values within the first subgroup showed a significant difference. There was no significant difference within the second and third subgroups.

We concluded that obesity significantly increased the operative time in the standard TKR group. However in computer navigated TKR there was no significant difference in operative time between non-obese and obese patients. As the surgeon acquired experience of computer navigation there was no difference in time taken for conventional and computer navigated TKR in obese patients. We hypothesize that in obese patients, computer assisted navigation helps the surgeon to overcome jig alignment uncertainty without any time penalty.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 314 - 315
1 Jul 2008
Matthews D Moonot P Latif A Cronin M Riordan J Field R
Full Access

Introduction: Measurement of outcome after THR is becoming increasingly important. NICE guidelines have been established and ODEP have stipulated target criteria for the successful evaluation of novel implants. To date, a streamlined, efficient Outcome Programme has not been developed which satisfies the required follow-up criteria. A Programme has been developed at our unit and its evolution is reported.

Methods: A database was created with the assistance of a database developer and an “Outcome Co-ordinator” was appointed to operate the database and manage the programme.

Operation data is now entered onto the database by the surgeon or co-ordinator at the time of surgery. Thereafter, the database automatically produces annual Oxford Hip Questionnaires, EQ-5D questionnaires and invite letters to patients for clinical review at stipulated time-points.

Questionnaires are returned by patients and scanned. This data is then electronically imported to the database without transcription error. Patients attend special Outcome clinics, staffed by Research Fellows and SpR’s, who examine the relevant hip and review their radiographs. The findings are recorded and the paper forms scanned and imported into the database. Non-responders are identified from the database and are chased up via telephone by the coordinator.

Data is extracted from the database with queries and presented using database reports.

Results: 2455 THR’s have been recorded on the database (2127 primaries, 328 revisions) 1937 patients continue under active review for THR. The percentage of patients lost to follow-up is only 2%, 10%, 15% at 2, 5 and 10 years respectively.

Discussion: An efficient system has been developed to maximise the follow-up of patients post THR. The burden on outpatient clinics is reduced and meaningful outcome measures are obtained. The programme could easily be extended to other centres throughout the UK and the benchmarks set by ODEP and NICE can also be attained.