header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_14 | Pages 6 - 6
23 Jul 2024
Mohammed F Soler A
Full Access

Trauma, across the United Kingdom, is managed using several software, paper based lists on Microsoft Word/Excel or Teams. There is usually poor handover or no handover in a standard format- during the on call, in the trauma meetings or in the wards. The software in the market for trauma management are not cost friendly or adaptable to local demands. The alternatives like Microsoft WORD based lists are fraught with their own problems. We endeavoured to make our trauma management effective.

A Quality Improvement Project was done. The goals to achieve at end of a year were:

Daily Trauma Handover in standardised format >90%

Ward Handover in standardised format >90%

Availability of outcomes of patients in clinic >80%

Reduction of paper usage >90% at the end of six months

Availability of updated “outliers” information >90% at the weekend ward round

Documentation from the Trauma Meeting > 90%

On-Call documentation in standardised format >90%

Doctor Satisfaction >75% in terms of: ease of us;, searchability of patient; ward round experience; morning trauma meeting experience; handover experience; inter-specialty communication; reliability; daily time saving; on-call time saving; patient care/safety; overall satisfaction.

We used Microsoft Sharepoint List to manage our trauma workload and have named the tool as “The List”. The List has achieved all objectives as above in one year's time, except Outlier information which was at 67% in a recent PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycle. The survey showed excellent doctor satisfaction and 90% respondents felt that The List saved an hour or more during the on-call and also during the ward rounds.

We conclude that The List is a very powerful tool making trauma meetings efficient and handover effective. It is indigenous, adaptable, safe, sustainable, cost neutral and easy to use.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 299 - 299
1 Jul 2011
Konan S Soler A Haddad F
Full Access

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and complications associated with revision hip arthroplasty undertaken in patients under the age group of 55 years.

Methods: A review of our institutions revision hip database showed that 430 revision hip arthroplasties undertaken over the past 9 years had a minimum follow up of 2 years. Of this 84 (56 female, 38 male) patients were under 55 years of age (range 2 to 8 years). The index procedures were preformed at an average age of 46 years (range 15 years to 54 years). The single major etiology of failure was aseptic loosening (74%), followed by infection (8%) and recurrent dislocation (7%). In majority of cases uncemented implants were used at revision surgery (91% femoral stem, 100% acetabular cups). Bone grafts were necessary in 39% of cases.

Results: There was 1% incidence of DVT requiring treatment and 1% incidence of deep infection requiring a further revision hip surgery. There were no cases of dislocation in this series. At final follow up satisfactory progress was noted in all cases with a significant improvement in Harris hip score (p < 0.05).

Discussion: In conclusion, revision of hip arthroplasty in patients below 55 years is associated with improvement in function and patient satisfaction. They perform better than older cohorts but not as good as primary THRs. The complication profile is comparable in the two groups.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 219 - 219
1 May 2011
Haddad F Barrack R Soler A
Full Access

Introduction: Third generation fixation systems allow for the retightening of cables, and are associated with high rates of trochanteric union. This is a prospective study undertaken to evaluate the outcome of the first 40 patients treated with a third generation cable plate and trochanteric hook system.

Methods: 36 patients treated by two revision hip arthroplasty surgeons using a third generation cable plate system were enrolled and followed up. These included 28 females and 12 males with an average age of 64 (range: 48–91). Large hooks were used in 30 with an average of 4.8 cables (range: 4–9). The need to retighten cables intra-operatively was noted. Clinical and radiographic follow-up was undertaken at 2 years.

Results: A third generation fixation system was used for 16 peri-prosthetic fractures, 6 trochanteric non unions, 5 structural femoral allografts, 6 complex revisions and for trochanteric advancement in 3 cases. The first cable tightened was loose by the end of the procedure in the majority of cases and had to be retightened. There were no cases of fretting or cable breakage. Two further tro-chanteric non unions needed re-fixation and bone grafting in a further procedure

Discussion and Conclusion: Third generation cable system allow for re-tightening, as the cable is not damaged by the crimping mechanism. This facility appears critical as some retightening is invariably required in the process of applying this type of device. There were only 2 re-operations for trochanteric non unions, but the overall outcomes were otherwise excellent, with no fretting or cable breakage. Modern cable systems afford improved, more flexible trochanteric fixation possibilities.