Patients who undergo either primary or revision total ankle replacement (TAR) expect improvements in pain, function and quality of life. The goal of this study was to measure the functional outcome improvements and the difference in patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing primary total ankle replacements compared to revision TAR. A single-center prospective cohort study was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Patients undertook the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MoxFQ) and EQ-5D health quality questionnaires pre-operatively, at 6 months and yearly for life. The Mann Whitney test was undertaken for statistical analysis.Background
Methods
The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of revision ankle replacements, using the Invision implant and impaction allograft for massive talar dome defects following primary ankle replacement failure. Outcomes were assessed in terms of bone graft incorporation; improvement in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs); and survivorship of the revision ankle arthroplasty. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data identified eleven patients who had massive bone cysts and underwent revision of a failed primary total ankle replacement to the Invision revision system, combined with impaction grafting using morselized femoral head allograft. These revisions occurred at a single high volume ankle arthroplasty centre. Computed tomography (CT) scans were used to assess bone graft incorporation and the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and EQ-5D scores were used pre and post operatively to assess PROMs.Objective
Methods
The literature on the outcome of revision total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) remains limited. We aim to report the clinical and radiological outcomes of revision TAA at a high-volume centre in the UK. Retrospective review of 28 patients that underwent 29 revision TAA procedures using INBONE II prosthesis. Demographic, radiological, and patient reported outcome measures data were analysed.Background
Methods
Between 2005 and 2010, the number of revision hip arthroplasties rose by 49.1%, and revision knee arthroplasties by 92.1%. This number is predicted to rise by 31% and 332% respectively by 2030. In March 2014, NHS England invited bids to run a pilot revision network. Nottingham Elective Orthopaedic Service (NEOS) was successful and the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network (EMSON) runs on a ‘hub-and-spoke’ model. All patients within the EMSON area requiring revision arthroplasty are discussed at a weekly meeting. The meeting is chaired by a revision hip and knee surgeon and attended by arthroplasty surgeons and an orthopaedic microbiologist. Other specialties are available as required. EMSON discussions and a proposed management plan are recorded, signed by the Chair and returned as a permanent record in the patient's notes.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
Diabetes is bad, common and diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) once established lead to high rates of amputation. In Nottingham our standard management for infected diabetic foot ulcers is surgical debridement, microbiological sampling, packing with gentamicin beads and targeted antibiotic therapy. Recently we have switched to packing with Stimulan, which is a purified synthetic calcium sulphate compound that can be mixed with patient appropriate antibiotics, is biodegradable and delivers better elution characteristics compared to gentamicin beads. To assess the efficacy of Stimulan compared to Gentamicin beads in the surgical management of infected diabetic foot ulcers.Background
Aim
We report the outcomes of salvage procedures in total ankle replacement (TAR) in a single surgeon series. This study was a retrospective review of patients who had undergone salvage procedures with tibio-talo-calcaneal (TTC) fusion for failed TAR over a period from 1999–2013 in a single centre. In this period, 317 TAR were performed of which 11 have failed necessitating conversion to TTC fusion. Clinical documentation and radiographs were reviewed for cause of failure, type of graft for fusion, time to radiological/clinical union and complications including further surgeries.Introduction:
Methods:
Total ankle replacement is a recognised treatment for disabling end stage ankle arthritis and an alternative to arthrodesis, although results are not yet comparable to other joint replacements. This has stimulated a constant evolution in design of implants and instrumentation. The Nottingham Foot and Ankle Unit used the STAR until 2005, when it switched to Mobility, due to the perceived advantages of less bone resection, improved instrumentation and potentially less polyethylene insert wear. The aim of this study is to report the unit's results and review the different outcomes between the two ankle replacements used. A retrospective analysis of all total ankle replacements carried out by the foot and ankle unit at Nottingham City Hospital between March 1999 and June 2013. Post operative complications, associated reoperations and revisions were recorded. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), Foot Function Index (FFI), European five dimension quality of life scores (EQ-D5) and patient satisfaction was independently assessed at each follow up visit. Other ankle replacements or those performed elsewhere or with less than 12 month follow up were excluded.Introduction:
Methods:
The literature shows that interscalene anaesthesia (ISA) offers many advantages over general anaesthesia(GA) for arthroscopic surgery. There are benefits intra-operatively, a decrease in post-operative complications and a decrease in hospital stay. However patient satisfaction and acceptance of interscalene anaesthesia has not been fully assessed. We wanted to prospectively assess patient choice and satisfaction with interscalene anaesthesia compared to general anesthesia. Fifty patients undergoing subacromial arthroscopic decompression and suitable for either anaesthetic technique, were prospectively identified between August and December 2006. The anaesthetic team discussed the pros and cons of general anaesthesia versus interscalene anaesthesia and the patient choose the type of anaesthesia. The same anaesthetic team and senior author managed and operated on all the patients in the study. Post-operatively patients filled out a questionnaire, which assessed patient choice, experience and satisfaction with type of anaesthesia undertaken. Forty-sic patients successfully completed the questionnaire (27 female, 19 male, average age 59). Seventy-six percent of patients felt that they really understood the pros and cons of each anaesthetic type. Seventy-eight percent of patients felt that they really had the choice in determining their anaesthesia. Twenty-six choose ISA and twenty choose GA. Post-operative complications were less in the ISA group versus the GA group; pain(5.23ISA, 5.75GA), nausea(11%ISA, 35%GA), vomiting(0 ISA, 1GA), and drowsiness(19% ISA, 70%GA). Hospital stay was shorter in ISA patients compared to GA patients. All patients claimed to be satisfied with their choice and none would in retrospect change it. Patients who choose interscalene anaesthesia had less post-operative pain, nausea, vomiting, drowsiness and shorter hospital stays then those patients who choose general anaesthesia for their shoulder surgery. This is consistent with the literature. All patients claimed to be fully satisfied with their hospital experience irrespective of the type of anaesthesia undertaken and none would have chosen differently.
Recent changes in health care policy relating to pre hospital triage and closure of acute services in district general hospitals have placed unanticipated strains on financially challenged larger trusts in London. The financial implications for the presumed ‘designated’ regional trauma centre have previously not been scrutinised. Our study investigates how these changes and the resultant ‘out of area’ trauma has impacted on workload at our London teaching hospital and looks at the financial implications for the Trauma and Orthopaedics department. A retrospective analysis of all attendances to the A&
E department over a four month period (July – October) in 2006 was compared to a similar period in 2005. All admitted, major orthopaedic trauma cases bought in by ambulance or HEMS services were included. Review of case notes and phone interviews were used to ascertain how many of the incidents had occurred outside our region of referral. An 83% increase in major trauma admissions was observed (32 cases in 2005, 53 cases in 2006; P value = 0.03). Of these cases, 27/32 and 46/53 could be assessed. Two patients in 2005 (7%) and twelve patients in 2006 (26%) were out of area (P value = 0.07). As these patients were bought in as ‘local’ cases, and not as regional referrals for treatment, the Trust was not reimbursed appropriately. Fiscal analysis of the out of area trauma cases was carried out to ascertain the shortfall incurred by the department.
