Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 92-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 409 - 409
1 Jul 2010
Desai AS Karmegam A Board TN Raut VV
Full Access

Introduction: Stiffness is a disabling problem following TKR surgery. The overall incidence is 1–3%. Though multiple factors have been implicated in development of stiffness, it still remains an incompletely understood condition. Furthermore, opinion is divided about the efficacy, timing and the number of MUA’s post TKR surgery, as there are no definitive guidelines.

Aims & Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the predisposing factors for stiffness following TKR surgery, to determine the efficacy of single and multiple manipulations and to investigate the most appropriate timing for manipulation.

Material & Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 86 patients who underwent manipulation for stiffness post-primary TKR surgery with at least one-year follow up. The number of manipulations, predisposing factors, the flexion gain at different intervals, final gain in flexion and range of movement was noted till the end of 1 year.

Results: Results were assessed by timing and number of MUA’s performed. Sixty five patients underwent single MUA and 21 had multiple MUA. At the end of one year the single MUA group showed 310 of sustained gain in flexion and in the multiple MUA group only 90 flexion gain was noted (p=0.003). MUA within 20 weeks of primary surgery showed 300 of flexion gain, whereas only 70 of flexion gain was seen when MUA was undertaken after 20 weeks (p=0.004). Patients on warfarin (9.5%) and with previous major surgeries to the knee prior to TKR (11.5%) had increase incidence of stiffness and poor flexion gain.

Conclusion: The timing of the 1st MUA is crucial, with better results achieved in MUA performed less than 20 weeks (particularly between 12–14 weeks) from primary surgery. Age, sex and type of disease do not influence the severity of stiffness in this study. There appears to be no added benefit in re-manipulation.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 411 - 411
1 Sep 2009
Sreekumar R Desai AS Board TN Raut VV
Full Access

Aims & Objectives: To assess whether the incidence of infection in Primary Total knee Arthroplasty is increased as a result of previous steroid infiltration into the knee joint.

Introduction: Steroid injection into the arthritic joint is a well-known modality of treatment of the arthritic joints. Its efficacy is well documented. Increased incidence of Infection secondary to steroid injection as compared to uninjected joints is reported in recent literature.

Material & Methods: 440 patients underwent Total Knee replacement (PFC SIGMA-Depuy) by senior author during 1997–2005 at Wrightington hospital. 90 patients had intraarticular steroid injection prior to surgery of which 45 patients had injection with in 1 year prior to surgery. All patients had at least one year follow up. Infection rate was assessed by case note, x-rays and microbiology review till last follow up.180 patients of a matched cohort who had total knee replacement without steroid injection were compared for infection rate.

Results: 2 cases of superficial infection were noted in Injection group and 5 cases of superficial infection in Non Injection group. No cases of Deep infection noted in either group. Stastical analysis showed no significant difference in incidence of infection in either group.

Conclusion: Steroids are useful adjuncts in the management of patients with arthritic joints. This study shows no increased incidence of infection in patients given steroid injection prior to arthroplasty.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 81-B, Issue 5 | Pages 852 - 857
1 Sep 1999
Clegg J Bache CE Raut VV

We have analysed the patterns of management of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in Coventry over a period of 20 years during which three different screening policies were used.

From 1976 to the end of 1985 we relied on clinical examination alone. The mean surgical cost for the treatment of DDH during this period was £5110 per 1000 live births. This was reduced to £3811 after the introduction of ultrasound for infants with known risk factors. Since June 1989 we have routinely scanned all infants at birth with a mean surgical cost of £468 per 1000 live births. This reduction in cost is a result of the earlier detection of DDH with fewer children requiring surgery. In those who do, fewer and less invasive procedures are needed. The overall rate of treatment has not increased and regular review of patients managed in a Pavlik harness has allowed us to avoid the complication of avascular necrosis.

When we add the cost of running the screening programme to the expense of treating the condition, the overall cost for the management of DDH is comparable for the different screening policies.