Background: Since 2003 we have offered correction of bilateral hallux valgus to suitable patients as a daycase but there is nothing in the literature to support this as safe practice. Two published series support unilateral hallux valgus surgery as a daycase. We prospectively evaluated 30 bilateral daycase patients assessing complications and overall satisfaction rating. Methods: The study group comprised 15 bilateral Scarf osteotomies, 9 bilateral Chevron osteotomies, 4 unilateral Scarf plus unilateral Chevron osteotomies, 1 bilateral 1st MTP joint fusion and 1 bilateral Lapidus procedure. All surgery was performed as a daycase under GA and ankle block. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiologically pre & post-operatively and had AOFAS scores measured. 21 patients were telephoned on the 3rd post-operative day to document their pain scores (0–10) and all patients responded to a patient satisfaction questionnaire at their discharge around 4.5 months. Results: 18 of the 21 patients interviewed on day 3 had mild pain (0–4) as their maximum pain score. 3 reported problems (2 of pain and 1 of poor mobility). There was one unilateral superficial wound infection which required oral antibiotics. No other patients required to call or attend their GP nor attend A& E. The mean overall patient satisfation rating (0–10) was 8.8 (median 9). If having similar repeat surgery 4 of the 30 patients (13%) would prefer an overnight stay. The reasons given by these 4 patients were: pain (1), poor mobility (1), a desire to be looked after by the nursing staff (2). Conclusions: Bilateral hallux valgus surgery can be performed safely as a daycase and with acceptable levels of patient satisfaction. It does not appear to result in an increased complication rate. To our knowledge this has not been previously documented in the literature

Daycase surgery has advantages for patients, clinicians and trusts. The Best Practice Tariff uplift is £200/case for Minor Foot Procedures performed as daycases. Before discharge, Foot & Ankle daycase procedures in Cheltenham General Hospital require physiotherapy assessment and frequently an orthotic aid. This audit analysed length of stay of daycase patients on a Foot and Ankle list. The standard was 100% of daycase patients to be discharged the same day. Length of stay for a consecutive series of patients was calculated for all daycase procedures from October to December 2010. An intervention was made comprising a weekly multidisciplinary bulletin from the Orthopaedic Consultant. This highlighted post-operative weight-bearing instructions and orthotic requirements for forthcoming daycase patients to physiotherapists, nursing staff and junior doctors. The data was compared with a second consecutive series of patients from October to December 2011. The first series included 38 listed daycases of which 61% (23 patients) were daycase discharges. The second series comprised 41 listed daycases who received pre-operative physiotherapy assessment and provision of required orthotic aids; 85% (35 patients) of this group were discharged the same day. Data analysis using Fisher's exact test reveals this intervention had a statistically significant impact on the number of patients discharged the same day (p < 0.0207). The financial implications are increased Best Practice Tariff with an £1800 uplift and reduction in the estimated cost of unnecessary overnight stays of £4640 over the 3 months. Improved multidisciplinary communication can significantly improve the patient experience, bed occupancy and cost of care

Daycase lumbar microdiscectomy surgery is not widely practised in the UK. We studied the outcome of microdiscectomy as daycase or inpatient surgery. Data collection was by retrospective case-note review of consecutive patients in each group. Inpatients not suitable for daycase surgery were excluded. There was no significant difference between patient groups in the rate of recurrent prolapse, wound infection, permanent sensory loss, or persistent postoperative pain. Symptoms resolved and patients returned to normal activities equally in both groups

Literature has suggested that obese (BMI >30) and morbidly obese (BMI > 35) patients should not be offered surgery as a day case due to increases in complication and readmission rates. At Torbay hospital, patients are routinely offered day case surgery, in a specialist day case unit, regardless of BMI. This is done with minimal complications and enables a higher throughput of patients and at least 75% of surgical procedures to be performed as a day case, as per NHS guidelines.

We present 12 year data of day case knee arthroscopy surgery performed at Torbay hospital. Over 12 years, 3421 knee arthroscopies were performed. 649 were performed on obese patients and 222 on morbidly obese patients. No anaesthetic complications were observed in any of the obese patient groups and readmissions rates (up to 28 days) were 0.8% in the morbidly obese group and 0.9% in the Obese group, compared to 0.9% for patients with BMI <30.

Our data shows that day case surgery can be performed on all patients regardless of BMI and patient obesity. We believe that other units should offer surgery to obese and morbidly obese patients to allow increased efficiency and achievement of NHS day case guidelines.

Aims

Due to widespread cancellations in elective orthopaedic procedures, the number of patients on waiting list for surgery is rising. We aim to determine and quantify if disparities exist between inpatient and day-case orthopaedic waiting list numbers; we also aim to determine if there is a ‘hidden burden’ that already exists due to reductions in elective secondary care referrals.

Background

Advances in surgical and anesthetic technique have resulted in a reducing length of stay for lumbar decompression, with the first day case procedure published in the literature in 1980. Current evidence suggests day case surgery is associated with improved patient satisfaction, faster recovery, reduced infection rates and financial savings. Following the introduction of a locally agreed day case protocol for lumbar microdiscectomy, we reviewed our 30-day postoperative complication rates.

Unicompartmental knee replacements offer improved function with more rapid recovery compared to TKR. There is no published experience with introducing this procedure as a day case in the UK. We report on our experience with a new protocol allowing the patient to be discharged on the day of surgery.

A new combination of anaesthetic and surgical techniques are employed. Paracetamol, ibuprofen and pregabalin are given pre-operatively. Patients receive a GA and a subsartorial saphenous nerve block is administered under ultrasound control. The surgery is performed using a routine minimally invasive technique. The joint and surrounding tissues are infiltrated with a combination of LA and adrenaline. Wound closure is with subcutaeneous suture and tissue glue.

Patients are mobilised on the day of surgery and if comfortable discharged on paracetamol, codeine, ibuprofen, tramadol P.R.N and buprenorphine patch.

Length of stay, pain scores, presence of nausea/vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness, post-operative bleeding and patient satisfaction are all recorded.

18 out of 19 patients have been discharged on the day of surgery. All record high satisfaction.

Patients can be safely discharged on the day of surgery after UKR with high levels of satisfaction. We believe we are the first unit in the UK to achieve this.

The literature shows that interscalene anaesthesia (ISA) offers many advantages over general anaesthesia(GA) for arthroscopic surgery. There are benefits intra-operatively, a decrease in post-operative complications and a decrease in hospital stay. However patient satisfaction and acceptance of interscalene anaesthesia has not been fully assessed. We wanted to prospectively assess patient choice and satisfaction with interscalene anaesthesia compared to general anesthesia.

Fifty patients undergoing subacromial arthroscopic decompression and suitable for either anaesthetic technique, were prospectively identified between August and December 2006. The anaesthetic team discussed the pros and cons of general anaesthesia versus interscalene anaesthesia and the patient choose the type of anaesthesia. The same anaesthetic team and senior author managed and operated on all the patients in the study. Post-operatively patients filled out a questionnaire, which assessed patient choice, experience and satisfaction with type of anaesthesia undertaken.

Forty-sic patients successfully completed the questionnaire (27 female, 19 male, average age 59). Seventy-six percent of patients felt that they really understood the pros and cons of each anaesthetic type. Seventy-eight percent of patients felt that they really had the choice in determining their anaesthesia. Twenty-six choose ISA and twenty choose GA. Post-operative complications were less in the ISA group versus the GA group; pain(5.23ISA, 5.75GA), nausea(11%ISA, 35%GA), vomiting(0 ISA, 1GA), and drowsiness(19% ISA, 70%GA). Hospital stay was shorter in ISA patients compared to GA patients. All patients claimed to be satisfied with their choice and none would in retrospect change it.

Patients who choose interscalene anaesthesia had less post-operative pain, nausea, vomiting, drowsiness and shorter hospital stays then those patients who choose general anaesthesia for their shoulder surgery. This is consistent with the literature. All patients claimed to be fully satisfied with their hospital experience irrespective of the type of anaesthesia undertaken and none would have chosen differently.

Aim: To assess the efficiency of pre-emptive analgesia in a clinical setting as opposed to closely controlled animal models, looking at postoperative pain scores, total analgesia requirement and amount of general anaesthetic agent required during surgery.

Methods and Results. Subject to exclusions, 40 patients undergoing day-case arthroscopy of the knee (mean age 44 years, ASA grade 1–2) were randomized into two treatment groups. All patients had general anaesthesia. The trial group received an injection of 15mI 0.5% Bupivicaine / 1/200,000 adrenaline pre-emptively. After surgery a placebo injection was given of 15ml normal saline in an identical manner. The control group received the opposite order. Additional post-operative analgesia, if required, was administered in recovery. This was recorded, also total dose of propofol used, time to awakening, visual analogue pain score at 15 / 30 / 60 minutes, postoperative nausea and vomiting at 30 minutes and the number of delayed discharges. Although no difference was observed in postoperative pain scores at 15, 30 or 60 minutes, a trend for the trial group to require less analgesia in recovery was observed (Chi squared =9.74, p=0. 1) but this was not statistically significant.

There was no difference in mean dose of propofol used in either group, 15mg/kg/hr (sd=2.85) trial versus 14.6mg/kg/hr (sd=1.96) control.

Conclusion: Local anaesthetic given pre-emptively appears to be no more effective at controlling pain in the immediate postoperative period than the current standard practice of postoperative injection. It’s effect in clinical practice may be less dramatic than that observed in more controlled animal models and a larger study may be required to show a statistically significant difference.

Abstract. Background. Daycase pathways which aim to discharge patients the same day following Unicompartmental Knee Replacement have been introduced in some centres, though most continue with Standard pathways. While Daycase pathways have cost savings, recovery data comparing pathways is limited. This study aims to compare patient-reported early recovery between Daycase and Standard pathways following UKR. Method. This study was carried out in two centres that originally used the same Standard recovery pathway for UKR. In one centre, the Standard pathway was modified into a Daycase pathway. 26 Daycase-Outpatient, 11 Daycase-Inpatient, and 18 Standard patients were recruited. Patients completed the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Recovery Score (OARS) and SF-36 (Acute) measure between Days 1–42. Results. Standard patients had significantly better Day-1 scores than Daycase patients, but this difference rapidly diminished, and from Day-3 onwards both groups had near-identical scores (OARS Day-1, 59 vs 37, p=0.002, stemming from differences in Pain, Nausea/Feeling-Unwell, Function/Mobility subscores p=0.003,0.014,0.011. OARS Day-3 48 vs 49, p=0.790). Daycase-Outpatients had a higher overall OARS (p=0.002), recovering 1–2 weeks faster than Daycase-Inpatients. OARS subscores demonstrated that Daycase-Outpatients had better Pain, Nausea/Feeling-Unwell, Fatigue/Sleep scores (p=0.020,0.0004,0.019 respectively). SF-36 scores corroborate OARS scores. Conclusion. The Standard cohort had better Day-1 scores than the Daycase cohort, likely due to later mobilisation and stronger inpatient analgesia; these differences diminished by Day-3. Daycase-Outpatients recovered substantially faster than Daycase-Inpatients – likely due to the factors that delayed their discharge. The convergence of scores at 6 weeks demonstrates that both pathways have similar early recovery outcomes

Abstract. Objectives. Stiffness is reported in 4%–16% of patients after having undergone total knee replacement (TKR). Limitation to range of motion (ROM) can limit a patient's ability to undertake activities of daily living with a knee flexion of 83. o. , 93. o. , and 106. o. required to walk up stairs, sit on a chair, and tie one's shoelaces respectively. The treatment of stiffness after TKR remains a challenge. Many treatment options are described for treating the stiff TKR. In addition to physiotherapy the most employed of these is manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). MUA accounts for up to 36% of readmissions following TKR. Though frequently undertaken the outcomes of MUA remain variable and unpredictable. CPM as an adjuvant therapy to MUA remains the subject of debate. Combining the use of CPM after MUA in theory adds the potential benefits of CPM to those of MUA potentially offering greater improvements in ROM. This paper reports a retrospective study comparing patients who underwent MUA with and without post-operative CPM. Methods. Standard practice in our institution is for patients undergoing MUA for stiff TKR to receive CPM for between 12–24hours post-operatively. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions were limited. During this period several MUA procedures were undertaken without subsequent inpatient CPM. We retrospectively identified two cohorts of patients treated for stiff TKR: group 1) MUA + post-operative CPM 2) Daycase MUA. All patients had undergone initial physiotherapy to try and improve their ROM prior to proceeding to MUA. In addition to patients’ demographics pre-manipulation ROM, post-MUA ROM, and ROM at final follow-up were recorded for each patient. Results. In total 168 patients who had undergone MUA between 2017–2022 were identified with a median Age of 66.5 years and 64% female. 57% had extension deficit (>5. o. ), 70% had flexion deficit (< 90. o. ), and 37% had both. 42 had daycase MUA without CPM and the remaining 126 were admitted for post-operative CPM. The mean Pre-operative ROM was 72.3. o. (SD:18.3. o. ) and 68.5. o. (19.0. o. ) for the daycase and CPM groups respectively. The mean ROM recorded at MUA was 95.5. o. (SD:20.7. o. ) and 108.3. o. (SD:14.1. o. ) [p<0.01] and at final follow-up was 87.4o (SD:21.9o) and 92.1o (SD:18.2o) for daycase and CPM groups respectively. At final follow-up for the daycase and CPM groups respectively 10% vs. 7% improved, 29% vs. 13% maintained, and 57% vs. 79% regressed from the ROM achieved at MUA. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 92% (SD:17%) and 85% (SD:14%) [p=0.03] for daycase and CPM groups respectively. Conclusion. Overall, there was no significant difference in ROM achieved at final follow-up despite the significantly greater improvement in ROM achieved at MUA for the CPM group. Analysis of the percentage ROM gained at MUA maintained at follow up showed that most patients regressed from ROM achieved at MUA in both groups with those in the CPM only maintaining 85% as opposed to 92% in the daycase patients. It is our observation that post-operative CPM does not improve ROM achieved after MUA as compared to MUA alone. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Stiffness is reported in up to 16% of patients after total knee replacement (TKR). 1. Treatment of stiffness after TKR remains a challenge. Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) accounts for between 6%-36% of readmissions following TKR. 2,3. The outcomes of MUA remain variable/unpredictable. Post-operative CPM is used as an adjuvant to MUA, potentially offering improved ROM, however, remains the subject of debate. We report a retrospective study comparing MUA with and without post-operative CPM. In our institution patients undergoing MUA to receive CPM post-operatively. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions were limited. During this period MUA procedures were undertaken without CPM. Two cohorts were included: 1) MUA + post-operative CPM 2) Daycase MUA. Patients’ demographics, pre-manipulation ROM, post-MUA ROM, and ROM at final follow-up were recorded. Between 2017-2022 126 patients underwent MUA and were admitted for CPM and 42 had daycase MUA. The median Age was 66.5 and 64% were female. 57% had extension deficit (>5. o. ), 70% had flexion deficit (< 90. o. ), and 37% had both. The mean Pre-operative ROM was 72.3. o. (SD:18.3. o. ) vs. 68.5. o. (19.0. o. ), ROM at MUA was 95.5. o. (SD:20.7. o. ) vs 108.3. o. (SD:14.1. o. ) [p< 0.01], and at final follow-up 87.4. o. (SD:21.9. o. ) vs. 92.1. o. (SD:18.2. o. ) for daycase and CPM groups respectively. At final follow-up for the daycase and CPM groups respectively 10% vs. 7% improved, 29% vs. 13% maintained, and 57% vs. 79% regressed from the ROM achieved at MUA. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 92%(SD:17) and 85%(SD:14)[p=0.03] for daycase and CPM groups respectively. There was no significant difference in ROM achieved at final follow-up despite the significantly greater improvement in ROM achieved at MUA for the CPM group. The CPM group lost a greater ROM after MUA (15% vs. 8%). We conclude that post-operative CPM does not improve ROM achieved after MUA

Introduction: We performed a prospective double blind randomised clinical trial to measure the effect of pre-operative infiltration of local anaesthetic around arthroscopy wounds compared to post-operative infiltration on post operative pain relief. The underlying clinical principle is for therapeutic intervention to be made in advance of the pain rather than as a reaction to it. Methods: 36 patients undergoing daycase unilateral knee arthroscopy between October 2000 and March 2001 were studied. The pre-operative group had 10ml 0.25% bupivicaine infiltrated around the arthroscopy portal site following induction of general anaesthesia (G.A.), the postoperative group received 10ml 0.25% bupivicaine after the procedure but before reversal of the G.A. Pain was assessed using a 10cm Visual Analogue Score (VAS) at pre-operative, 1, 2 and 24 hours post operative. At each assessment the patients were blinded to the previous scores that they had submitted. Oral analgesic use in the post-operative 24 hours was also recorded. Results: There were 18 patients in each group. The mean Visual Analogue Pain Scores (VAS) were lower in the post-op group (1.3) compared to the pre-op group (1.58) at pre-operative assessment. However this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.5607). At 1 hour post-op the mean VAS in the post-op group was 1.58 and in the pre-op group 2.59. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.18). The mean VAS at 2 hours post-op in the pre-op, group was 1.76 compared to 1.82 in the post-op group. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.9932). At 24 hours the pre-op group had a lower mean VAS (2.25) than the post-op group (2.4). This difference was however not statistically significant (p=0.7418). Analysis of the post-operative analgesia requirement in both groups failed no reveal a statistically significant difference (p=0.3965). Conclusion: In daycase knee arthroscopy under general anaesthesia there is no beneficial role in the use of pre-emptive local anaesthetic infiltration around the arthroscopy portal sites as compared to post-operative infiltration

Introduction: Utilisation of day case surgery units for orthopaedic trauma is an uncommon concept. Limited reports of its use in specific orthopaedic trauma cases have been encouraging. There is currently no formal provision for day case surgery for trauma patients at our institution. The aim of this study was to identify the proportion of trauma patients that would be suitable for daycase surgery and the proportion of these that currently undergo procedures as a day case, with a view to establishing a more formalised daycase trauma service. Methods: We undertook prospective data collection on all trauma referrals in our institution over a 1 month period in January 2008. Information was recorded for date and time of referral, admission, operation and discharge. Nature of injury, type of procedure performed, grades of surgeon involved and length, nature and reason for any pre or post-operative delay was also recorded. All patients requiring surgery were assessed on their suitability for day case as defined by pre-determined patient-related and surgery-related criteria. Results: Of all the patients referred during the study period 129 patients required surgery. Of the operated patients 80 (62%) had a procedure suitable to be performed as a day case as defined by surgical factors. Of these, 57 (44%) patients met criteria for day surgery as defined by patient factors. Of those eligible for day case surgery (n=57), only 27% had their procedures performed as a day case. The total number of additional days spent in hospital by day case eligible patients was 69. 34 days were due to pre-operative delay and 35 were due to post operative delay. The mean number of pre operative days in hospital was 1.33(range 0–3) and post operative days 1.85 (range 0–8). There was a wide case mix of procedures performed that were deemed appropriate for day case surgery. 76% were upper limb or soft tissue procedures.The causes for pre-operative delay established two main issues. Limited dedicated operating theatre capacity for day case eligible procedures resulting in their de-prioritisation and limitations on dedicated bed availability. The cause for postoperative delay was more variable but on the whole was for reasons which with appropriate protocols could have been avoided. Conclusions: This study has identified that a significant proportion of orthopaedic trauma workload would be appropriate to be carried out as a day case. Without an appropriate day case surgery setup, current delays are causing 69 unnecessary bed days per month in our institution. Causes for current delays are related to lack of synchrony between timing of admission and surgery and lack of appropriate discharge protocols. We are in the process of developing a plan for implementation of a dedicated day case trauma service at our institution and suggest that this may be an appropriate use of day case facilities in other trusts

Purpose. Ankle and hindfoot surgery is associated with severe post-operative pain, leading to a reliance on opiate analgesia and its side effects, longer hospital stays, and patient dissatisfaction. Popliteal sciatic nerve blockade has the potential to resolve these issues. We present our experience with using a continuous local anaesthetic nerve block delivered by an elastomeric pump in patients undergoing major foot and ankle surgery. Methods. All patients undergoing major ankle or hindfoot surgery during a one-year period under a single surgeon were eligible for a continuous popliteal block. An ultrasound-guided popliteal nerve catheter was inserted immediately before surgery and a bolus of bupivacaine infiltrated. Using a 250ml elastomeric pump, a continuous infusion was started immediately post operatively and terminated 48 hours later. Prospective data including post-operative analgesia, nausea and vomiting (PONV), length of stay (LOS), pain scores, and patient satisfaction were recorded daily for 48 hours post operatively. Results. Eighty-one patients (53 male, 28 female) with a mean age 60 years (24–84 years) were included. 66 patients received spinal anaesthesia with 15 having general anaesthetics. There were no complications associated with the nerve catheters. At day 1 post op, 49 (60%) patients reported having no or mild pain. 68 (84%) patients had no PONV. 27 (33%) patients did not require any opiate analgesia during their post op period. Average LOS for all patients was 54 hours, with 41 (51%) discharged within 48 hours. 74 (91%) reported good or excellent pain management in the post operative period. Conclusions. Continuous popliteal sciatic nerve blockade is a safe and effective method for controlling post-operative pain, reducing opiate-induced side effects, and optimising length of stay. Patient-reported outcomes support its use in major ankle and hindfoot surgery. Furthermore, reduced costs from early discharge in combination with a daycase tariff uplift can bring significant financial savings

Background. Benefits of day case foot and ankle surgery includes reduced hospital stay, associated cost savings for the hospital, high patient satisfaction and quicker recovery with no increase in complication rates. In 2007, we set up the preoperative foot and ankle group. Patients were seen three weeks before surgery by a specialist nurse, physiotherapist and a preoperative evaluation is done. The therapist explains the patient's weightbearing status and advices on how to carry this out. Our aim was to reduce inpatient hospital stay and increase our day case procedures. Methods. We evaluated length of stay and physiotherapy intervention for all our patients during the first three months of 2007 to 2011. Mean length of stay was calculated and Mann-Whitney U test was performed using median. Results. Mean length of stay for combined forefoot and midfoot group reduced by 1.92 days and median reduction was statistically significant(p< 0.01). For forefoot surgery alone, the mean length reduced by 2.14 and median reduction was significant(p< 0.001) and for midfoot surgery alone, the mean stay reduced by 1.34 days and median was significant (p< 0.001). Hind foot patient's mean length of stay reduced by 6.78 days and the median was significant (p< 0.001). But for the ankle group the mean length of stay did reduce but the median was not statistically significant (p=0.225). Day case surgery increased by 43.5% for forefoot, 23.2% for midfoot and 14% for ankle surgeries but not for hindfoot. Conclusions. The overall results show that the preoperative foot and ankle group has resulted in reduction of inpatient stay and increase in daycase surgery performed. A pre-operative group is a highly efficient method of enhancing patient care and improving length of stay at the hospital for the patient. The cost saving for the hospital is around £35,400 per annum

The latest government targets state that by the end of 2005 the maximum waiting time for an outpatient appointment will be 3 months. These recommendations will not only increase the size of the outpatient clinics, but also the resources required thereafter. The purpose of this study was to analyse the outcome of new knee referrals to one consultant’s knee outpatient service in order to quantify the resources required to investigate and treat these patients. All new patients attending one consultant’s knee out-patient service in the time period January 1st 1997 to December 31st 1997 were prospectively entered into a database recording patient details, source of referral and provisional diagnosis. Eighteen months after the time period a cohort of 200 patients was randomly selected and the notes were analysed retrospectively. The number of outpatient appointment episodes (OPAs), MRI scans, physiotherapy referrals and surgical episodes generated were recorded for each patient. Analysis of the initial database records show that a total of 662 new knee referrals were seen in 1997. 52% (341) were made up of the five most common diagnoses, these being osteoarthritis, anterior knee pain, major anterior cruciate ligament injury, medial ligament injury and medial meniscus injury. Retrospective analysis of the 200 patient notes revealed that these patients required a total of 511 OPAs, 38 MRI scans, 178 courses of physiotherapy and 93 surgical episodes (53 elective and 40 daycase/emergency). These figures can be extrapolated to account for the total number of patients seen:. The resource implications of a new knee referral are substantial. Extra resources must accompany each new patient, otherwise, although government targets will be reached the time taken to complete each patient’s treatment will become longer. It is imperative that before an agreement is made to see new patients the resources required to manage them are in place

Aims

Intravenous dexamethasone has been shown to reduce immediate postoperative pain after total hip arthroplasty (THA), though the effects are short-lived. We aimed to assess whether two equivalent perioperative split doses were more effective than a single preoperative dose.

We reviewed 116 patients who underwent 118 arthroscopic ankle arthrodeses. The mean age at operation was 57 years, 2 months (20 to 86 years). The indication for operation was post-traumatic osteoarthritis in 67, primary osteoarthritis in 36, inflammatory arthropathy in 13 and avascular necrosis in two. The mean follow-up was 65 months (18 to 144). Nine patients (10 ankles) died before final review and three were lost to follow-up, leaving 104 patients (105 ankles) who were assessed by a standard telephone interview. The pre-operative talocrural deformity was between 22° valgus and 28° varus, 94 cases were within 10° varus/valgus. The mean time to union was 12 weeks (6 to 20). Nonunion occurred in nine cases (7.6%). Other complications included 22 cases requiring removal of a screw for prominence, three superficial infections, two deep vein thromboses/pulmonary emboli, one revision of fixation, one stress fracture and one deep infection. Six patients had a subtalar fusion at a mean of 48 months after ankle fusion. There were 48 patients with excellent, 35 with good, 10 with fair and 11 with poor clinical results.