Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXI | Pages 66 - 66
1 May 2012
A. H R. L A. P L. B K. T D. S H. K E. S M. M D. S M. M P. O P. B P. G H. B R. B P. D
Full Access

The distal femur fracture is a difficult injury that affects young men andelderly women. The tissue stripping that occurs with the traditional approach has been a factor in the development of complications like infection and nonunion. This study addresses the issue of minimally invasive approach. Does the LISS system really improve the results of such fracture?

Fifty-two patients were included in the trial from six academic trauma centres. Twenty-eight fractures had been randomised to be fixed with the LISS device, while twenty-four had the DCS implant. Type C3 fractures were excluded as they were not amenable for fixation with DCS system. All procedures were performed via minimally invasive technique. The LISS system had the targeter that helped with plate insertion and distal diaphyseal screws placement. Radiography was utilised in the case of the DCS distal screws insertion.

All fractures went onto union, except two participants in LISS group who had to be revised due to loss of reduction, in the early post-operative peroid. There were three nonunions in the same group. These required a re-operation. Further more, a LISS participant who had re-injured his distal femur (unrelated to LISS plate), was fixed with different implant. There was a single nonunion with the DCS group that needed revision surgery. There was one participant from each group who had drifted into varus. Neither required a re-operation. This translated into a 21% re-operation rate in the LISS system compared to 4% with the DCS device.

Our data supports the use of the DCS system in the fixation of distal femur fractures (except Type C3} via a minimally invasive approach. The LISS implant seems to be technique dependent. In our centre, the LISS plate had been discontinued in favour of the DCP and LCP systems.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXI | Pages 9 - 9
1 May 2012
D. H H. S P. G
Full Access

Introduction

Most studies now use Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) as the preferred and only method for assessing ‘functional outcome’ following surgery. It is thought that these questionnaires accurately reflect the patient's pain and physical function. We hypothesised that comprehensive functional examination would therefore correlate strongly with PROMS following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

We prospectively assessed the function of 100 consecutive knee replacement patients, pre-operatively, then at 8, 26 and 52 weeks post-operatively. PROMS employed were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Short Form-36. Additionally, leg strength (Leg Extensor Power Rig(tm)), a validated battery of timed functional tasks (Aggregated Locomotor Function, ALF) and pain scores (numerical rating scale) were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using the Minitab version 15 software. Level of significance was set as p = < 0.05.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXI | Pages 132 - 132
1 May 2012
A. M P. G A. B S. H N. M P. L
Full Access

Background

Salvage procedures on the 1st MTPJ following failed arthroplasty, arthrodesis or hallux valgus surgery are difficult and complicated by bone loss. This results in shortened first ray and transfer metatarsalgia. We present our experience of using tri-cortical interposition grafts to manage this challenging problem.

Methods

Between 2002 and 2009 our department performed 21 1st MTPJ arthrodeses using a tri-cortical iliac crest interposition graft. Surgical fixation was achieved with a compact foot plate. We performed a retrospective review from the medical notes and radiographs along with American Foot and Ankle scores which were collected prospectively.

We analysed the following parameters: time to radiological union, requirement for further surgery, lengthening of 1st ray and any post operative complications.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 78-B, Issue 2 | Pages 337 - 338
1 Mar 1996
R. G. C. P. J. G.