header advert
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Applied filters
Foot & Ankle

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_19 | Pages 19 - 19
1 Nov 2016
Sinclair V O'Leary E Pentlow A Hepple S Harries B Winson I
Full Access

Introduction

Arthroscopic ankle fusion is an effective treatment for end stage ankle arthritis. It reliably improves pain but at the expense of ankle motion. Development of adjacent degenerative joint disease in the foot is thought to be a consequence of ankle fusion due to altered biomechanics. However, it has been reported to be present on pre-operative radiographs in many patients. There is very little evidence reporting the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic ankle fusion and particularly those requiring secondary procedures for adjacent joint disease.

Material and methods

We reviewed the operative records of 149 patients who had undergone arthroscopic ankle fusion under the care of two consultant foot and ankle surgeons between 2002 and 2006. We contacted patients by telephone to determine whether they had required further investigation or surgery on the same foot after their index procedure. Secondary outcome measures included a Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOQFQ) score and a patient satisfaction score.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_19 | Pages 15 - 15
1 Nov 2016
Sinclair V Walsh A Watmough P Henderson A
Full Access

Introduction

Ankle fractures are common injuries presenting to trauma departments and ankle open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is one of the first procedures targeted in early orthopaedic training. Failure to address the fracture pattern with the appropriate surgical technique and hardware may lead to early failure resulting in revision procedures or premature degenerative change. Patients undergoing revision ORIF are known to be at much greater risk of complications, and many of these secondary procedures may be preventable.

Method

A retrospective analysis of all patients attending our unit for ankle ORIF over a two year period was undertaken. Patients were identified from our Bluespier database and a review of X rays was undertaken. All patients undergoing re-operation within eight weeks of the primary procedure were studied. The cause of primary failure was established and potential contributing patient and surgical factors were recorded.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 97-B, Issue SUPP_14 | Pages 18 - 18
1 Dec 2015
Sinclair V Millar T Garg S
Full Access

Background

Total ankle replacement (TAR) design has evolved greatly in recent years and offers a reasonable alternative to ankle arthrodesis in a select patient population with end-stage arthritis. Originator series’ report good longevity and excellent patient reported outcomes (PROMs). We report our outcomes in an independent, non-inventor cohort.

Method

We collected prospective data on consecutive patients undergoing total ankle replacement between April 2008 and March 2012, under the care of one Consultant Orthopaedic surgeon. The primary outcome measure was time to revision. Secondary outcomes measures included American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain, and complications.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXII | Pages 30 - 30
1 May 2012
Sinclair V Barrie J
Full Access

Hammer toe involves metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) hyperextension and proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) flexion. Surgery commonly involves excision arthroplasty or fusion of the PIPJ with MTPJ soft tissue release if necessary. Previous series record that MTPJ release was carried out “as required” but not how often release is necessary. Myerson and Shereff's (1989) cadaver study found release of the extensors, MTPJ capsule and collateral ligaments necessary for full hammertoe correction. Hossain (2002) found the clinical results of this procedure were no better than simple PIPJ fusion. We release the MTPJ if hyperextension persists after PIPJ correction and release the components sequentially. We studied how often and how extensive a release was required, and how this corelated with pre-operative assessment.

We reviewed the records of 164 patients who had hammer toe correction under one consultant surgeon. Patients with complex corrections were excluded. The severity of the pre-operative deformity was classified as type 1 (PIPJ and MTPJ correctable), 2 (PIPJ fixed, MTPJ correctable) or 3 (neither joint correctable). We recorded the extent of release required for each toe.

Results

Of 334 type 2 toes in 146 patients, 178 (53.3%) required no MTPJ release, 11 (3.3%) extensor tenotomy only, 15 (4.5%) extensor tenotomy and MTPJ dorsal capsulotomy and 130 (38.9%) extensor tenotomy, capsulotomy and collateral ligament release. Of 31 type 3 toes in 18 patients, one (3.2%) needed no release, 2 (6.5%) tenotomy, one (3.2%) capsulotomy and 27 (87.1%) complete release.

Discussion

Nearly 50% of toes needed MTP soft tissue release, partial in 8%. Pre-operative assessment was not very accurate in predicting the need for release. We have not yet correlated need for release with clinical outcome.