Introduction. Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation. Materials and Methods. Patients: Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11–17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments. Results. : Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared to external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (P-value 0.007 and <0.0001 respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs, frequency of outpatient department appointments were all more favourable with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, although this difference was not statistically significant (P-value 0.088). Conclusions. The cost of femoral lengthening with lengthening nails was not significantly higher than the external fixators’ cost. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health
Introduction. The purpose of this research is to compare the quality of life in children during gradual deformity correction using external fixators with intramedullary lengthening nails. Materials and Methods. Prospective analysis of children during lower limb lengthening. Group A included children who had external fixation, patients in group B had lengthening nails. Patients in each group were followed up during their limb reconstruction. CHU-9D and EQ-5DY instruments were used to measure quality of life at fixed intervals. The first assessment was during the distraction phase (1 month postop.), the second was during the early consolidation phase (3 months postop.) and the final one was late consolidation phase (6–9 months depends on the frame time). Results. Group B patients reported significantly better utility compared to Group A. This was observed during all the stages of the treatment. Group B children were less worried (P 0.004), less sad (P 0.0001), less pain (p <0.0001), less tired (P 0.0002), better school work (P0.0041), better sleep (p 0.016), more able to do sports activities (p 0.004) and, they were more independent (p <0.0001) compared to group B. QALYS was better for the nails group compared to external fixation group 0.44 compared to 0.36 for external fixators. Conclusions. Lengthening nails had the potential to improve the quality of life and utility compared to external fixation. This will help further
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. Method. A prospective randomized control trial was designed and conducted to compare the MIS Anterolateral Approach to that of the MIS Posterolateral and MIS Direct Lateral Approach. Contemporary methods for
Study design.
Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach. A comprehensive electronic search and quantitative data analysis from eligible studies were performed. Inclusion criteria were adults with a limb amputation managed with a one- or two-stage osseointegration procedure with follow-up reporting of complications.Aims
Methods
Guidelines on the care of the seriously injured have led to widespread changes in clinical practice. The ‘hub and spoke’ model of trauma care means increasing numbers of patients with complex problems are concentrated into regional centres. Though providing the highest standards of treatment, this has cost implications for the receiving unit, particularly given the Department of Health's move towards a ‘Payment by Results’ model of health provision. We undertook an
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile and level of interest in the use, acceptability, safety, and effectiveness of virtual outpatient consultations and telemedicine. These models of care are not new but a number of challenges have so far hindered widespread take-up and endorsement of these ways of working. With the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remote and virtual working and consultation have become the default. This paper explores our experience of and learning from virtual and remote consultation and questions how this experience can be retained and developed for the future. Cite this article:
This study presents patient-reported quality of life (QoL) over the first year following surgical debridement of long bone osteomyelitis. It assesses the bone involvement, antimicrobial options, coverage of soft tissues, and host status (BACH) classification as a prognostic tool and its ability to stratify cases into ‘uncomplicated’ or ‘complex’. Patients with long-bone osteomyelitis were identified prospectively between June 2010 and October 2015. All patients underwent surgical debridement in a single-staged procedure at a specialist bone infection unit. Self-reported QoL was assessed prospectively using the three-level EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) at five postoperative time-points (baseline, 14 days, 42 days, 120 days, and 365 days). BACH classification was applied retrospectively by two clinicians blinded to outcome.Aims
Methods
Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve. Cite this article: