Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 1_Supple_A | Pages 14 - 17
1 Jan 2017
Carlson SW Liu SS Callaghan JJ

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and radiographic outcomes at ten-year follow-up of three prospective consecutive series of patients each of which received a different design of cementless femoral components for total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Patients and Methods

In Cohort 1, 91 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA with a cementless porous-coated anatomic femoral stem (PCA) between October 1983 and January 1986. In Cohort 2, 86 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA with an extensively porous-coated cementless femoral stem (Prodigy) between June 1994 and October 1997. In Cohort 3, 88 consecutive patients (100 hips) underwent THA with a proximally porous-coated triple-tapered cementless stem (Summit) between April 2002 and October 2003. All three groups underwent prospective clinical and radiographic evaluation.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 11_Supple_A | Pages 70 - 72
1 Nov 2014
Callaghan JJ Liu SS Phruetthiphat O

A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B (11 Suppl A):70–2.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 5 | Pages 629 - 635
1 May 2013
YaDeau JT Goytizolo EA Padgett DE Liu SS Mayman DJ Ranawat AS Rade MC Westrich GH

In a randomised controlled pragmatic trial we investigated whether local infiltration analgesia would result in earlier readiness for discharge from hospital after total knee replacement (TKR) than patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) plus femoral nerve block. A total of 45 patients with a mean age of 65 years (49 to 81) received a local infiltration with a peri-articular injection of bupivacaine, morphine and methylprednisolone, as well as adjuvant analgesics. In 45 PCEA+femoral nerve blockade patients with a mean age of 67 years (50 to 84), analgesia included a bupivacaine nerve block, bupivacaine/hydromorphone PCEA, and adjuvant analgesics. The mean time until ready for discharge was 3.2 days (1 to 14) in the local infiltration group and 3.2 days (1.8 to 7.0) in the PCEA+femoral nerve blockade group. The mean pain scores for patients receiving local infiltration were higher when walking (p = 0.0084), but there were no statistically significant differences at rest. The mean opioid consumption was higher in those receiving local infiltration.

The choice between these two analgesic pathways should not be made on the basis of time to discharge after surgery. Most secondary outcomes were similar, but PCEA+femoral nerve blockade patients had lower pain scores when walking and during continuous passive movement. If PCEA+femoral nerve blockade is not readily available, local infiltration provides similar length of stay and similar pain scores at rest following TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:629–35.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 11_Supple_A | Pages 19 - 21
1 Nov 2012
Callaghan JJ Liu SS Haidukewych GJ

Options for the treatment of subcapital femoral neck fractures basically fall into two categories: internal fixation or arthroplasty (either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty). Historically, the treatment option has been driven by a diagnosis-related approach (non-displaced neck fractures versus displaced neck fractures). More recently, the traditional paradigm has changed. Instead of a diagnosis-related approach, it has become more of a patient-related approach. Treatment options take in to consideration the patient’s age, functional demands, and individual risk profile. A simple algorithm can be helpful in terms of directing the treatment. Non-displaced fractures, regardless of age of the patient, should be treated with closed reduction and internal fixation. For displaced femoral neck fractures, the treatment differs depending on the age of the patient. The younger patient should be treated with urgent ORIF with the goal of an anatomic reduction. For displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly, cognitive function should be determined. For those who are cognitively functioning, total hip arthroplasty appears to be the best option. In the cognitively dysfunctional, a bipolar hemiarthroplasty or a total hip arthroplasty with use of larger heads (32 mm or 36 mm) and/or constrained sockets are a viable option.