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

Adequate range of knee motion is critical for successful total knee arthroplasty. While aggressive physical therapy is an important component, manipulation may be a necessary supplement. There seems to be a lack of consensus with variable practices existing in managing stiff postoperative knees following arthroplasty. Hence we did a postal questionnaire survey to determine the current practice and trend among knee surgeons throughout the United Kingdom. A postal questionnaire was sent out to 100 knee surgeons registered with British Association of Knee Surgeons ensuring that the whole of United Kingdom was well represented. The questions among others included whether the surgeon used Manipulation Under Anaesthaesia (MUA) as an option for stiff postoperative knees; timing of MUA; use of Continuous Passive Motion (CPM) post-manipulation. We received 82 responses. 46.3% of the respondents performed MUA routinely, 42.6% sometimes, and 10.9% never. Majority (71.2%) performed MUA within 3 months of the index procedure. 67.5% routinely used CPM post-manipulation while 7.3% of the respondents applied splints or serial cast post MUA. 41.5% of the surgeons routinely used Patient Controlled Analgaesia +/− Regional blocks. Majority (54.8%) never performed open/arthroscopic debridement of fibrous tissue for adhesiolysis. Knee manipulation requires an additional anaesthetic and may result in complications such as: supracondylar femur fractures, wound dehiscence, patellar tendon avulsions, haemarthrosis, and heterotopic ossification. Moreover studies have shown that manipulation while being an important therapeutic adjunct does not increase the ultimate flexion that can be achieved which is determined by more dominant factors such as preoperative flexion and diagnosis. Manipulation should be reserved for the patient who has difficult and painful flexion in the early postoperative period

Distal radial fractures are amongst the most common trauma referrals, however controversy remains regarding their optimum management. We undertook a retrospective review of the management of distal radial fractures in our department. The prospectively maintained trauma database was used to identify patients admitted for operative management of a dorsally displaced distal radial fracture between June 2008 and June 2009. Only extra-articular or simple intra-articular fractures were included (AO classification A2/A3/C1/C2). Operation notes were reviewed to determine the method of fixation. Patients were contacted by post and asked to complete a functional outcome score - Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). A further 12 patients with similar fractures who had been managed conservatively were also asked to complete a DASH score to provide a comparison between operative and non-operative management. 98 patients were identified - 67 female, 31 male. Mean age was 51 years, range 15-85 years. All patients were at least 1 year post-op. 26 patients had manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). 48 patients had MUA and K-wire fixation, which was supplemented with synthetic bone substitute in 16 cases. 3 patients had MUA and bone graft and 21 patients had open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a volar plate. 34 correctly completed DASH scores were returned. A lower score equates to a better functional outcome. Mean DASH scores were: MUA 14.8; MUA+K-wire 13.1; ORIF 13.6; conservative 47.1. This data would indicate that patients with a significantly displaced distal radial fracture have a better functional outcome with operative management to improve the fracture alignment. However, all of the methods of fixation used resulted in similar functional outcomes at one year

Background. Patients presenting to fracture clinic who have had initial management of a fracture performed by Accident and Emergency (A+E) often require further intervention to correct unacceptable position. This usually takes the form of booking a patient for a general anaesthetic to have manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) or open surgery. Methods. Prospective data collection over a 6-month period. Included subjects were those that had initial management of a fracture performed by A+E, who went on to require re-manipulation in fracture-clinic. Manipulations were performed by trained plaster technicians using entonox analgesia followed by application of moulded cast. Radiographs were reviewed immediately post-manipulation by treating surgeon and patient managed accordingly. A retrospective review of radiograph images was performed by two doctors independently to grade the outcomes following manipulation. Results. 38 patients with 39 fractures included in study. Sites of fracture included 32 distal radius, 2 ankle, 1 spiral distal tibia and fibula, 3 metacarpal and 1 proximal phalanx of finger. 22 patients had anatomical/near-to anatomical reduction at post fracture-clinic manipulation of fracture and was the as well as definitive management (satisfactory outcome). 13 patients had a outcome 2 (minimally displaced but and satisfactory reduction of the fracture) at post fracture-clinic reduction. 12 of these were deemed acceptable went onto outcome 1 for definitive management with 1 going to outcome 2 (requiringed further manipulation). 4 patients had unsatisfactory reduction of fracture outcome 3 at post fracture-clinic reduction and all of these patients went onto outcome 3 (required surgery). Conclusions. This study supports the practice of possible primary reduction and if required, re-manipulation and cast moulding using only entonox analgesia, of selected patient cases fractures by trained plaster technicians. Without this intervention, almost all of these cases will have required an MUA or additionally Kirscher wire or open fixation. There is potential to utilise a plaster technician in A+E, reducing the need for further fracture clinic appointments, being more acceptable to patients and having a resultant cost-saving implication. Level of Evidence. Level 3

The Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary (DGRI) catchment area encompasses 5 of the “7 Stanes” mountain bike trails which had approximately 165000 visitors in 2010. Using our hospital coding system we identified potential mountain bike injuries in 2010. Patient postcode, injuries, operating theatre time and number of clinic appointments was recorded. We confirmed mountain bike related hospital admissions in 29 patients. 13 patients had local (DG) postcodes and 16 had non-DG post codes. The DG postcode patients required 41 bed days, 8 operations, 400 minutes theatre time, and 35 DGRI clinic appointments. The non-DG postcodes required 50 bed days, 11 operations, 730 minutes theatre time, 3 DGRI clinic appointments and 8 outpatient referrals to other hospitals. Totals for all postcodes were 91 bed days, 19 operations, 1130 minutes theatre time and 38 DGRI clinic appointments. The surgeries comprised: 2 ankle ORIF; 1 subsequent removal of syndesmosis screw; 5 wrist/forearm manipulations (+/−kwires); 2 distal radius ORIF; 1 DHS; 2 shoulder MUA, 1 calcaneus ORIF, 4 wound debridements, 1 facial wound closure. Other noteworthy admissions were 5 head injuries including 2 cervical spine fractures. We anticipate this is an underestimate and suggest a new code is created to specifically identify mountain bike injuries for A&E and inpatient care. This would allow a more accurate assessment of the impact on all healthcare providers in the county

Cubitus varus following paediatric supra-condylar humeral fracture represents a complex three-dimensional malunion. This affects cosmesis, function and subsequent distal humeral fracture risk. Operative correction is however difficult with high complication rates. We present the 40-year Yorkhill experience of managing this deformity. From a total of 3220 supracondylar humeral fractures, 40 cases of post-traumatic cubitus varus were identified. There were ten undisplaced fractures, treated in cast, and thirty displaced fractures. Five were treated in cast, thirteen manipulated (MUA), four MUA+k-wires, seven ORIF (six k-wire, one steinman pin) and one in skeletal-traction. Sixteen malunions were treated operatively. The mean pre-operative varus was 19°. All had cosmetic concerns, three mild pain, one paraesthesia/weakness and three reduced movement (ROM). The operative indication was cosmetic in fifteen and functional in one (concern about instability). Twelve patients had lateral closing-wedge osteotomies; three complex/3D osteotomies (dome, unspecified rotational, antero-lateral wedge) and two had attempted 8-plate guided-growth correction. Complications occurred in eight patients (50 %): Fixation was lost in three (two staples, one k-wiring), incomplete correction in six (both 8-plates, both staples, two standard plates) and one early wound infection requiring metalwork removal resulting in deformity recurrence. One patient underwent revision lateral wedge osteotomy with full deformity correction but marked ROM restriction (20–100°) secondary to loose bodies. Those without complications were satisfied (50 %). All patients with residual deformity were unsatisfied. 1 patient with keloid scarring was unsatisfied despite deformity correction. Varus malunion is uncommon (1 %) but needs to be guarded against. It tended to occur in displaced fractures treated with MUA and cast alone. We therefore recommend additional pin fixation in all displaced fractures. Deformity correction should only be attempted in those with significant symptomatic deformity due to the high complication/dissatisfaction rates. Staple osteotomy fixation and 8-plate guided growth correction are not recommended