header advert
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1662 - 1667
1 Dec 2016
Teoh KH von Ruhland C Evans SL James SH Jones A Howes J Davies PR Ahuja S

Aims

We present a case series of five patients who had revision surgery following magnetic controlled growing rods (MGCR) for early onset scoliosis. Metallosis was found during revision in four out of five patients and we postulated a mechanism for rod failure based on retrieval analysis.

Patients and Methods

Retrieval analysis was performed on the seven explanted rods. The mean duration of MCGR from implantation to revision was 35 months (17 to 46). The mean age at revision was 12 years (7 to 15; four boys, one girl).


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXI | Pages 15 - 15
1 Jul 2012
Bhagat S Lau S Jones D James S Davies PR
Full Access

Purpose

Retrospective review of fusion rates using Grafton DBM/allografts only in AIS.

Methods

Medical records of 30 consecutive patients at an average age of 19(18-24)were reviewed. All patients had segmental fixation with dual rod and pedicle screw construct followed by decortication supplemented with matrix strips/allograft chips. Minimum follow up 1.5 years, average of 2 years (1.5-3). First follow up at 3 months postoperatively and than 6 months subsequently. All patients were evaluated using criteria described by Betz et al for “possible pseudoarthrosis” which included persistent back pain, defects in the fusion mass, loosening of pedicle screws, junctional kyphosis and curve progression of more than 10 degrees from initial standing postoperative PA views.

There were no infections. Average time to clinically and radiographically evident fusion was 12 months (range 10-16). Radiographically visible unfused facet joints were encountered in 3 patients towards the end of the construct. One patient had extension of the construct to treat junctional kyphosis. Other two remained asymptomatic. None had Progression of deformity. One patient developed pars defect at level below construct and was treated with extension of fusion.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_X | Pages 27 - 27
1 Apr 2012
Czaplicka L Clarke A Ahuja S Chopra I Davies PR Howes J James S Jones A
Full Access

Spinal cord injury following trauma is initially dealt with by acute hospitals. The early management including stabilization is usually performed by these centres. This is followed by onward referral to one of the Regional Spinal Injury Units.

There is concern of both sides of the fence regarding mobilization following spinal cord injury. The acute hospitals want to avoid the problems of prolonged recumbency and the Regional Spinal Injury Units wish to avoid the problems of early aggressive mobilization.

Therefore, we set out to discover if there was a standard approach to mobilising these patients following surgical stabilization, because of the oversubscribed resources of the spinal injury units and the wish to start mobilizing the injured as soon as possible.

A comparative audit of the Regional Spinal Injury Units in the UK and North American Units.

Regional Spinal Injury Units in United Kingdom and North America

Clear Management Plan

Mobilisation Schedule

We had replies from all Regional Spinal Injury Units in the UK and from seven in North America.

The Regional Spinal Injury Units all had differing approaches. Only a few were able to convey a clear management plan and mobilization schedule. Whereas the North American Units provided a ‘mobilize as able’ plan in all cases.

The North American Units had a ‘mobilize as able’ policy, whereas the UK units had a mixed approach. A coherent collaboration between the spinal surgeons stabilizing these injuries and the spinal injury units providing rehabilitation would improve patient management.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 90-B, Issue 5 | Pages 619 - 621
1 May 2008
Andrews J Jones A Davies PR Howes J Ahuja S

We have examined the outcome in 19 professional rugby union players who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between 1998 and 2003. Through a retrospective review of the medical records and telephone interviews of all 19 players, we have attempted to determine the likelihood of improvement, return to professional sport and the long-term consequences. We have also attempted to relate the probability of symptoms in the neck and radicular pain in the arm to the position of play. Neck and radicular pain were improved in 17 patients, with 13 returning to rugby, the majority by six months after operation. Of these, 13 returned to their pre-operative standard of play, one to a lower level and five have not played rugby again. Two of those who returned to the game have subsequently suffered further symptoms in the neck, one of whom was obliged to retire. The majority of the players with problems in the neck were front row forwards.

A return to playing rugby union after surgery and fusion of the anterior cervical spine is both likely and safe and need not end a career in the game.