The Fixion expandable nailing system provides an intramedullary fracture fixation solution without the need for locking screws. Proponents of this system have demonstrated shorter surgery times with rapid fracture healing, but several centres have reported suboptimal results with loss of fixation. This is the largest comparative series to be reported to date.

We compared outcomes between 50 consecutive diaphyseal tibial fractures treated with a Fixion device at our institution to an age, sex and fracture configuration matched series of 57 fractures at a neighbouring hospital treated with a conventional interlocked intramedullary nail. Minimum follow up time was 2 years.

Operating time was significantly reduced in the Fixion group (mean 61 minutes, range 20–99) compared to the interlocked group (88 minutes, 52–93), p< 0.00001. The union rate was no different between the Fixion group (93.9%) and the interlocked group (96.5%), p=0.527. Time to clinical and radiological union was significantly faster in the Fixion group (median 85 days, range 42–243) compared to the interlocked group (119, 70–362), p< 0.0001. The overall reoperation rate was lower in the Fixion series (24.5% vs 38.6%, p=0.121), although the majority of reoperations in the interlocked group were more minor, for screw removal. 3 Fixion nails were revised for fixation failure and 2 manipulations were required for rotational deformities after falls; all of these patients were non-compliant with post-operative instructions. There were no fixation failures in the interlocked group. 3 fractures were noted to propagate during inflation of Fixion nails.

The Fixion nail is faster to implant and allows more physiological loading of the fracture, with a faster union time. However, these advantages are offset by a reduction in construct stability. Our results have demonstrated a learning curve with a reduction in complications as our indications were narrowed, avoiding osteoporotic, multifragmentary, unstable fractures and non-compliant patients

It is established good practice that hip and knee replacements should have regular follow-up and for the past seven years at the North Hampshire Hospital a local joint register has been used for this purpose and we compare this with results of the Swedish and UK national and the Trent Regional registries.

Since March 1999, all primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasties performed at North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke have been prospectively recorded onto a database set up by one of the senior authors (JMB). Data from patients entered in the first five years of the register were analysed. All patients have at least one year clinical and radiological review then a minimum of yearly postal follow-up. 3266 operations (1524 hips and 1742 knees) were performed under the care of 13 consultants. Osteoarthritis was the most common primary diagnosis in over 75% of hips and knees. Our revision burden was 7.5% (10.2% hips and 3.5% knees). As of 31/12/2006 6.2% of patients had died and 5.5% were lost to follow-up.

Revision rates were 1.5% and 1.4% for primary total hip and knee replacements respectively.

Our data analysis of revisions and patello-femoral replacements has allowed us to change our practice following local audit which is ongoing. Oxford scores at 2 years had improved from a mean of 19 and 21 pre-operatively to 40 and 39 for primary hips and knees respectively. Our costs are estimated at approximately £35 per patient for their lifetime on the register.

Compared to other registries:

Our dataset is more complete and comprehensive