Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 3 | Pages 378 - 383
1 Mar 2013
Kim BS Choi WJ Kim J Lee JW

We report the incidence and intensity of persistent pain in patients with an otherwise uncomplicated total ankle replacement (TAR). Arthroscopic debridement was performed in selected cases and the clinical outcome was analysed.

Among 120 uncomplicated TARs, there was persistent pain with a mean visual analogue scale (VAS) of 2.7 (0 to 8). The intensity of pain decreased in 115 ankles (95.8%). Exercise or walking for more than 30 minutes was the most common aggravating factor (62 ankles, 68.1%). The character of the pain was most commonly described as dull (50 ankles, 54.9%) and located on the medial aspect of the joint (43 ankles, 47.3%).

A total of seven ankles (5.8%) underwent subsequent arthroscopy. These patients had local symptoms and a VAS for pain ≥ 7 on exertion. Impingement with fibrosis and synovitis was confirmed. After debridement, the median VAS decreased from 7 to 3 and six patients were satisfied. The median VAS for pain and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score of the ankles after debridement was similar to that of the uncomplicated TARs (p = 0.496 and p = 0.066, respectively).

Although TAR reduces the intensity of pain, residual pain is not infrequent even in otherwise uncomplicated TARs and soft-tissue impingement is the possible cause.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:378–83.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXII | Pages 57 - 57
1 May 2012
Mahmood A Shivarathre D Platt S Hennessy M
Full Access

Background

Cartilage lesions in chronic lateral ligament deficiency are common with the incidence rates mentioned in the previous literature up to 30%. However, other intra-articular pathologies in the unstable ankle have received little attention. Anterolateral impingement associated with synovitis and scarring is a less recognised feature in the treatment of chronic instability. The aim of our study was to ascertain the incidence of chondral and anterolateral impingement lesions in the symptomatic lateral ligament complex deficiency.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent modified Brostrom repair for symptomatic recurrent instability of the ankle. All patients underwent a MRI scan prior to surgery. Arthroscopy was performed in all the patients before lateral ligament reconstruction. Seventy seven patients with 78 ankles were included in the study. Patients who had previous ankle surgery or inflammatory arthropathy were excluded. Data was obtained from clinical and radiological records. Arthroscopic findings were recorded in detail during the surgery.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXII | Pages 24 - 24
1 May 2012
Saltzman C
Full Access

Technique, inducations, complications and early outcomes with posterior ankle and subtalar arthroscopy. A. ANKLE ARTHROSCOPY: Tips and Pearls on Avoiding Complications. a. Introduction. i. understanding of the anatomy of the foot and ankle is critical to safe performance of arthroscopic procedures and prevention of complications. ii. understanding of the surface and intra-articular anatomy of the ankle/subtalaar region is essential. iii. topographical anatomy serves as a guide to the successful placement of arthroscopic portals in the ankle. iv. neurovascular and tendinous structures are most at risk. b. Indications for Posterior/Subtalar Arthroscopy. i. Posterior ankle/ST Impingement. ii. OLT Ankle (usually posteromedial). iii. Assist operative reduction of calc or post mal fractures. iv. Arthrodesis ankle/ST or both. c. Portals. i. Know the anatomy, use blunt dissection, minimize re-entry. ii. Preoperative plan for access, pathology, visualization. d. Prone Position. a. Posteromedial. b. Posterolateral. c. Accessory posterolateral. e. Set-up/instrumentation. i. Positioning -. ii. posterior, prone. iii. Distraction- non-invasive vs invasive (trans-calcaneal thin wire). iv. Equipment - general set-up/instruments. - scopes (4.0 for outside joint or fusions; 2.7 otherwise). - irrigation/pump (run at lowest flow possible). f. Tips on Avoiding Complications. i. Patient selection and education. ii. Careful preoperative planning, evaluation. iii. Know/respect your anatomy. iv. Meticulous portal placement/care. v. Limit operative time/distension/tissue damage. vi. Use mini C-arm to monitor. vii. Plan, plan and plan, if you are prepared, all will work out. viii. Rehabilitation protocol and follow up


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 8 | Pages 631 - 637
10 Aug 2021
Realpe AX Blackstone J Griffin DR Bing AJF Karski M Milner SA Siddique M Goldberg A

Aims

A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial.

Methods

We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment.