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 Many people feel that supervision, training and quality of patient care is negatively affected and consider this an outdated model in modern practice.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.
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.