We aimed to review the outcome of Agility total ankle replacements carried out in our institution between 2002 and 2006. Follow-up consisted of clinical and radiological review pre-operatively, then at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months, and annually until 10 years post op. Clinical review included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score, satisfaction and pain scores. Case notes were reviewed to determine intra and post-operative complications. 30 arthroplasties were performed in 30 consecutive patients. Pre-operative diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis(16), primary osteoarthritis(12) and post-traumatic osteoarthritis(2). After a mean follow up of 6.2 years (1.4–10.1), 4 patients had died, and 22 out of the remaining 24 were available for follow-up. Intra operative complications included lateral malleoli fracture(3) and superficial peroneal nerve injury(2). Post operative complications included 1 early death, but this was not related to the surgical procedure. Two patients developed deep infections of the prosthesis. One underwent removal of the implant; the other is on long term oral antibiotic therapy. One patient had delayed union of the syndesmosis and six patients had non-union. On clinical assessment, patients' AOFAS scores improved from mean 40.4 pre-op to 83.5 post-op (p< 0.001). Radiological assessment of the tibial component revealed 25 (93%) patients had lucency in at least one zone in the AP radiograph. We found a relatively high level of re-surgery and complications following Agility total ankle replacement. A 7% revision rate is much higher than would be tolerated in knee or hip arthroplasty, but compares favourably to other studies of TAR. Despite radiological features which suggest loosening, the high rate of re-surgery and complications; patients are generally satisfied with the procedure, reporting lower levels of pain and improved function. Overall we feel that the Agility ankle is an acceptable alternative to ankle arthrodesis, however patients need to be warned of the risk of re-surgery.
Procedure Based Assessments (PBAs) were recently introduced for orthopaedic trainees and play an increasing role in assessment. The study aims to describe the attitudes of trainees to the educational benefit of PBAs and the factors which underlie these attitudes. A link to an online questionnaire was sent via the eLogbook email system to all orthopaedic trainees in the UK with a National Training Number (NTN). The questions were attitude statements with Likert-type scaled responses, free text responses and closed questions.Introduction
Methodology
Displaced fractures of the neck of femur are routinely treated in the elderly by either cemented hemiarthoplasty, in the fit, or uncemented hemiarthroplasty, in the less fit. In Scotland the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines are followed to identify which patients should have a cemented prosthesis. This is based on cardiovascular status, and the age and fragility of the patient. An uncemented prosthesis should be a final operation. A peri-prosthetic fracture is considered a failure of treatment as the patient then has to undergo an operation with a far greater surgical insult. We looked at all neck of femur fractures over a period of Jan 2007 to June 2010. The number of the peri-prosthetic fractures for uncemented hip hemiarthroplasties was established and a case note review was carried out. There was 1397 neck of femur fractures. 546 hemiarthroplasties were carried out, of which 183 were cemented, and 363 uncemented. 14 patients (4% of uncemented hemiarthoplasties) had peri-prosthetic fractures. The case notes of these patients were analysed. We found there was a common link of significant cardiovascular risk, lack of falls assessment (only 14% of patients had a completed falls assessment and 35% sustained their fracture during an admission to hospital) and confusion (43% had a degree of dementia that caused significant confusion). Cemented implants should be considered in those who have failed falls assessment, or are confused; even if the cardiovascular risk is significant. This decision should be made in conjunction with a senior anaesthetist. This is being implemented in our unit and a prospective audit is being carried out over the same time period (July 2010 to Dec 2013) to assess the benefit.