Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether on-demand removal (ODR) is noninferior to routine removal (RR) of syndesmotic screws regarding functional outcome. Methods. Adult patients (aged above 17 years) with traumatic syndesmotic injury, surgically treated within 14 days of trauma using one or two syndesmotic screws, were eligible (n = 490) for inclusion in this randomized controlled noninferiority trial. A total of 197 patients were randomized for either ODR (retaining the syndesmotic screw unless there were complaints warranting removal) or RR (screw removed at eight to 12 weeks after syndesmotic fixation), of whom 152 completed the study. The primary outcome was functional outcome at 12 months after screw placement, measured by the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS). Results. There were 152 patients included in final analysis (RR = 73; ODR = 79). Of these, 59.2% were male (n = 90), and the mean age was 46.9 years (SD 14.6). Median OMAS at 12 months after syndesmotic fixation was 85 (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 95) for RR and 80 (IQR 65 to 100) for ODR. The noninferiority test indicated that the observed effect size was significantly within the equivalent bounds of -10 and 10 scale points (p < 0.001) for both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol, meaning that ODR was not inferior to RR. There were significantly more complications in the RR group (12/73) than in the ODR group (1/79) (p = 0.007). Conclusion. ODR of the syndesmotic screw is not inferior to routine removal when it comes to functional outcome.
This study estimated trends in incidence of open fractures and the adherence to clinical standards for open fracture care in England. Longitudinal data collected by the Trauma Audit and Research Network were used to identify 38,347 patients with open fractures, and a subgroup of 12,170 with severe open fractures of the tibia, between 2008 and 2019 in England. Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Clinical care was compared with the British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and National Major Trauma Centre audit standards.Aims
Methods
There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection. An advanced PubMed search was conducted, using medical subject headings (MeSH) to identify terms and abbreviations used to describe knee arthroplasty procedures. The search related to TKA, unicompartmental (UKA), patellofemoral (PFA), and combined PKA procedures. Surveys were conducted of orthopaedic surgeons, trainees, and biomechanical engineers, who were asked which of the descriptive terms and abbreviations identified from the literature search they found most intuitive and appropriate to describe each procedure. The results were used to determine a popular consensus.Aims
Materials and Methods
Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial
or lateral unicompartmental knee artroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty
(PFA) are a good option in suitable patients and have the advantages
of reduced operative trauma, preservation of both cruciate ligaments
and bone stock, and restoration of normal kinematics within the
knee joint. However, questions remain concerning long-term survival.
The goal of this review article was to present the long-term results
of medial and lateral UKA, PFA and combined compartmental arthroplasty
for multicompartmental disease. Medium- and long-term studies suggest
reasonable outcomes at ten years with survival greater than 95% in
UKA performed for medial osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis, and similarly
for lateral Cite this article:
