header advert
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_IV | Pages 55 - 55
1 Mar 2012
Edwards M Hartwright D Scott W
Full Access

Parallel operating lists are a contentious subject. Many people feel that supervision, training and quality of patient care is negatively affected and consider this an outdated model in modern practice. Dual and parallel lists have been largely abandoned due to training committees' opinions that standards of orthopaedic training were being negatively affected.

A new model of dual lists was implemented in a district general hospital as part of an arthroplasty service. The training impact was evaluated. Adjacent theatres were utilised for a single session. Two joint replacement surgeries were undertaken in each theatre. The sequential timing of the lists allowed the consultant to perform or supervise all of the operations in a consecutive manor. Staggering the start times allowed the consultant to approach and implant the first joint replacement, leaving the junior doctor or nurse practitioner to close the first operation and get the patient off the table while the consultant transferred to the adjoining theatre where the registrar had positioned, painted and draped the second patient, allowing the consultant to perform or supervise the second surgery. The process was then repeated until all four cases were performed.

Evaluation of two registrar's elogbooks was undertaken and compared to the national average.

During a twelve month period the trainees was involved in a mean of 72 joint replacement surgeries compared to a national average of 49. The trainees were the primary surgeon in a significantly higher number of operations compared to the national average.

This model of sequential operating lists facilitated a service of high volume arthroplasty surgeries and significantly increased the exposure of the training registrar to joint replacements. Supervision of trainees was not significantly impacted. The model requires effective support services and a dedicated team of theatre staff, but can be very rewarding for consultant surgeon and trainee alike.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 110 - 110
1 Feb 2012
Hartwright D Hatrick C O'Leary S Walsh W
Full Access

We present a biomechanical cadaveric study investigating the effect of type II Superior Labrum Anterior Posterior (SLAP) lesions on the load-deformation properties of the Long Head of Biceps (LHB) and labral complex. We also report our assessment of whether repair of the type II SLAP lesion restored normal biomechanical properties to the superior labral complex.

Using a servo-controlled hydraulic material testing system (Bionix MTS 858, Minneapolis, MA), we compared the load-deformation properties of the LHB tendon with:

the LHB anchor intact;

a type II SLAP lesion present;

following repair with two different suture techniques (mattress versus ‘over-the-top’ sutures).

Seven fresh-frozen, cadaveric, human scapulae were tested. We found that the introduction of a type II SLAP lesion significantly increased the toe region of the load deformation curve compared to the labral complex with an intact LHB anchor. The repair techniques restored the stiffness of the intact LHB but failed to reproduce the normal load versus displacement profile of the labral complex with an intact LHB anchor.

Of the two suture techniques, the mattress suture best restored the normal biomechanics of the labral complex.

We conclude that a type II SLAP lesion significantly alters the biomechanical properties of the LHB tendon. Repair of the SLAP lesion only partially restores the biomechanical properties. We hypothesise that repairs of type II SLAP lesions may fail at loads as low as 150N, hence the LHB should be protected following surgery.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 184 - 184
1 May 2011
Hartwright D Ahuja N Singh S
Full Access

Introduction: The NHS Contract for Acute Services (April 2008), includes a requirement in Schedule 5 to report on patient reported outcome measures (PROMS). This sets out national standards for elective patients undergoing Primary Unilateral Total Hip Replacements (THR) and Total Knee Replacements (TKR). The recommended instruments for these procedures are the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores. Our aim was to assess whether these instruments accurately assess patient satisfaction and pain and whether a more efficient model could be used.

Methods: All patients undergoing primary THR and TKR under the care of the senior author (DH) between Sept 07 – Sept 09 at the RHC Hospital were included in the study. The primary diagnosis in all patients was Osteo-arthritis. All Patients were operated on by DH using the same approach, implants and post-operative rehabilitation programme. Patients were assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year post-operatively using the Oxford-12 joint specific score and also by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. The Oxford-12 and VAS scores were then compareded against one another for correlation using scatter-plots and regression analysis.

Results:

Primary TKR:

At 6 weeks: Correlation for OKS and pain, OKS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.782, 0.736 and 0.796 respectively (p< 0.001)

At 6 months: Correlation for OKS and pain, OKS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.718, 0.749 and 0.767 respectively (p< 0.001)

At 1 year: Correlation for OKS and pain, OKS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.7, 0.703 and 0.793 respectively (p< 0.001) Primary THR:

At 6 weeks: Correlation for OHS and pain, OHS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.361, 0.309 and 0.477 respectively (p< 0.001)

At 6 months: Correlation for OHS and pain, OHS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.596, 0.673 and 0.635 respectively (p< 0.001)

At 1 year: Correlation for OHS and pain, OHS and satisfaction, Pain and satisfaction were r = 0.682, 0.636 and 0.862 respectively (p< 0.001)

Conclusion: The Oxford-12 site specific score correlates extremely well with both VAS scores for pain and patient satisfaction at all time points post-operatively with all values showing a significant (p < 0.001) positive association. Similarly, pain and patient satisfaction scores demonstrate a strong positive association. We propose that rather than using the Oxford-12 score as part of the PROMS assessment, a simple VAS for pain and satisfaction would provide adequate information and would be easier for patients to complete.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 92-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 320 - 320
1 May 2010
Hartwright D smith RC Keogh A Khan R
Full Access

Objectives: To compare the results of various surgical approaches to the knee in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Data Sources: Cochrane Bone, Joint, and Muscle Trauma group trials register (2007), Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane Library issue 2, 2007), Medline (1950–2007), Embase (1974–2007), CINAHL (1982–2007), Pubmed, SCOPUS and ZETOC.

Review Methods: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing surgical approaches in patients undergoing primary TKA. Relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and weighted mean differences and 95% CIs calculated for continuous outcomes. Individually randomised trials were pooled whenever possible with the use of the fixed-effects model of Mantel-Haenszel.

Results: 53 articles were identified using our search strategy; of these, 32 were excluded from the systematic review. 21 trials involving 1082 patients (1170 TKAs) were included.

Midvastus (MV) vs Medial Parapatellar (MPP) approach:

Quadriceps function in the early post operative period was better preserved in the MV group. Post operative pain, blood loss and the need for LRR tended to be lower in the MV group.

Subvastus (SV) vs Medial Parapatellar approach:

Quadriceps function was better preserved in the SV group up to 3 months post operatively. ROM was generally greater up until the 4 week time point. Post operative pain and blood loss was lower in the SV group.

Midvastus vs Subvastus approach:

The SV group suffered with significantly more pain at six months post operatively.

Quadriceps-sparing versus Medial Parapatellar Approach:

Significantly longer operative times and more complications were noted in the QS group.

Modified ‘Quadriceps sparing’ Medial Parapatellar vs Mini-Subvastus (MSV) approach:

A tendency for earlier restoration of SLR and better early ROM was noted in the MSV group.

Conclusions: Approaches preserving the quadriceps tendon improve the early extensor mechanism function and tend to decrease the need for LRR. Combined with a decrease in blood loss and postoperative pain, these approaches improve early rehabilitation and allow for a more rapid recovery of knee function. However, these early improvements fail to provide any long term benefit, do not improve knee scores, or decrease the length of hospital stay.

MIS tends to result in an improved early quadriceps function and decreased blood loss. However, these approaches are technically more demanding, result in longer operative times and provide no long-term benefit. There is concern that they result in a greater number of major complications and risk implant mal-alignment. Eversion of the patella seems to correlate with poor quadriceps function.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 423 - 423
1 Sep 2009
Hartwright D Keogh A Carey-Smith R Khan RJK
Full Access

Objectives: To compare the results of various surgical approaches to the knee in primary arthroplasty surgery.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis

Data Sources: Cochrane Bone, Joint, and Muscle Trauma group trials register (2007), Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane Library issue 2, 2007), Medline (1950 to February 2007), Embase (1974 to February 2007), CINAHL (1982 to February 2007), Pubmed, SCOPUS and ZETOC. If data was insufficient trialists were contacted via telephone, email or letter.

Review methods: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing surgical approaches to the knee in patients undergoing primary arthroplasty surgery.

Results: Twenty-three randomised, controlled trials (1282 patients, 1490 TKAs) were included.

Midvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function in the early post operative period was better preserved in the MV group. Post operative pain, blood loss and the need for LRR tended to be lower in the MV group. There was no difference in ROM, hospital stay, knee scores, complications or radiological alignment.

Subvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function was better preserved in the SV group up to 3 months post operatively. ROM was generally greater up to the 4 week time point. Post operative pain and blood loss was lower in the SV group. There was no difference in operative/tourniquet time, hospital stay, rate of LRR, or complications.

Modified “Quadriceps sparing” Medial Parapatellar vs Mini-Subvastus (MSV) approach: A tendency for earlier restoration of SLR and better early ROM was noted in the MSV group.

Midvastus vs Subvastus approach: The SV group suffered with significantly more pain at six months post operatively.

Conclusions: Approaches preserving the quadriceps tendon improve the early extensor mechanism function and tend to decrease the need for LRR. Combined with a decrease blood loss and postoperative pain, these approaches improve early rehabilitation and allow for a more rapid recovery of knee function. However, these early improvements fail to provide any long term benefit, do not improve knee scores, or decrease the length of hospital stay.