We aimed to determine whether there are differences in patient-reported quality of life (QoL) outcome between local flap versus free flap. All patients admitted with lower limb open fractures were retrospectively reviewed. Patient notes were assessed for demographics, time to fracture union, wound healing and patient-reported QoL with EQ-5D-5L, alongside a novel flap assessment tool.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established treatment for single compartment end-stage knee arthrosis with good recorded survivorship. Although often used in more active younger patients, patient selection remains controversial. To identify risk factors for early failure we compared patients with UKR failure requiring revision to total knee replacement (TKR) with a control group. Between September 2002 and 2008, 812 Oxford Mobile Bearing Medial UKRs were implanted. 21 implants (20 patients) required revision to TKR within 5 years. The leading cause for revision was lateral compartment disease progression (11 patients). In the revision group, 17 patients were female (81%), average age at index surgery was 64.1 (range 48-81) and average BMI 31.8 (range 24.4-41.5). In the control group of all patients who underwent UKR during this period, 348 patients were female (44%), average age was 65.0 (range 36-89) and average BMI 31.2 (range 21.0-61.0). Radiological assessment of the tibiofemoral valgus (TFV) angle for revision patients was compared with an age and sex matched control group. In the revision group, average TFV angle was +1.5 pre-operatively and +6.1 post-operatively with an average change of +4.6. In the control group average TFV angle was -0.4 pre-operatively and +4.3 post-operatively with an average change of +4.7.Background
Methods & Results
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has traditionally been performed using a single bundle (SB) technique, providing good to excellent results in most cases . There is some evidence from biomechanical studies that double bundle (DB) techniques may improve anteroposterior and rotational stability. A number of prospective randomised trials have been performed producing conflicting results. The aim of this study was to find out any differences in outcome between single bundle and double bundle ACL reconstruction. A systematic review was performed to compare the evidence pertaining to the outcomes of double bundle versus single bundle ACL reconstruction methods. Medline (1966 onwards), EMBASE (1980 onwards) and the Cochrane database were searched, retrieving 9,568 possible articles. Only 6 studies fulfilled all the inclusion criteria. To be included, the study had to be prospective and randomised, comparing double bundle and single bundle grafts inserted using an arthroscopically assisted technique and have a minimum 12 month follow-up period for all patients. Analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Five hundred and sixty patients (341 single bundle and 219 double bundle reconstructions) were considered for statistical analysis from these six papers. There was a significant difference between the groups with the double bundle reconstruction showing less of pivot shift positivity (P< 0.03). The DB group had significantly greater antero-posterior stability on KT arthrometer testing (P=0.002). Double bundle ACL reconstruction improved both antero-posterior and rotational stability. There was also significant improvement in IKDC scores in patients with double bundle ACL reconstruction compared to single bundle reconstruction.
