header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 4 | Pages 401 - 411
1 Apr 2024
Carrothers A O'Leary R Hull P Chou D Alsousou J Queally J Bond SJ Costa ML

Aims

To assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares three treatments for acetabular fractures in older patients: surgical fixation, surgical fixation and hip arthroplasty (fix-and-replace), and non-surgical treatment.

Methods

Patients were recruited from seven UK NHS centres and randomized to a three-arm pilot trial if aged older than 60 years and had a displaced acetabular fracture. Feasibility outcomes included patients’ willingness to participate, clinicians’ capability to recruit, and dropout rates. The primary clinical outcome measure was the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) at six months. Secondary outcomes were Oxford Hip Score, Disability Rating Index, blood loss, and radiological and mobility assessments.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 269 - 269
1 Sep 2012
Chou D Swamy G Lewis J Badhe N
Full Access

Introduction

There has been renewed interest in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with reports of good long term outcomes. Advantages over a more extensive knee replacement include: preservation of bone stock, retention of both cruciate ligaments, preservation of other compartments and better knee kinematics. However, a number of authors have commented on the problem of osseous defects requiring technically difficult revision surgery. Furthermore, a number of recent national register studies have shown inferior survivorship when compared to total knee arthroplasty.

The purpose of this study was to review the cases of our patients who had a revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. To determine the reason for failure, describe the technical difficulties during revision surgery and record the clinical outcomes of the revision arthroplasties.

Methods

Between 2003 and 2009 our institute performed thirty three revisions of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on thirty two patients. The time to revision surgery ranged from 2 months to 159 months with a median of 19 months.

Details of the operations and complications were taken form case notes. Patient assessment included range of motion, need for walking aids and the functional status of the affected knee in the form of the Oxford knee score questionnaire.