header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 61 - 61
4 Apr 2023
Makaram N Al-Hourani K Nightingale J Ollivere B Ward J Tornetta III P Duckworth A
Full Access

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on Gustilo-Anderson (GA) type IIIB open tibial shaft (AO-42) injuries to determine the consistency of reporting in the literature.

A search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify relevant studies published from January 2000 to January 2021 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The study was registered using the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. Patient/injury demographics, management and outcome reporting were recorded.

There were 32 studies that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1,947 patients (70.3% male, 29.7% female). There were 6 studies (18.8%) studies that reported on comorbidities and smoking, with mechanism of injury reported in 22 (68.8%). No studies reported on all operative criteria included, with only three studies (9.4%) reporting for time to antibiotics, 14 studies (43.8%) for time from injury to debridement and nine studies (28.1%) for time to definitive fixation. All studies reported on the rate of deep infection, with a high proportion documenting union rate (26/32, 81.3%). However, only two studies reported on mortality or on other post-operative complications (2/32, 6.3%). Only 12 studies (37.5%) provided any patient reported outcomes.

This study has demonstrated a deficiency and a lack of standardized variable and outcome reporting in the orthopaedic literature for Gustilo-Anderson type IIIB open tibial shaft fractures. We propose a future international collaborative Delphi process is needed to standardize.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_4 | Pages 11 - 11
1 Apr 2018
Kwong L Billi F Keller S Kavanaugh A Luu A Ward J Salinas C Paprosky W
Full Access

Introduction

The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the Explant Acetabular Cup Removal System (Zimmer), which has been the favored system for many surgeons during hip revision surgery, and the new EZout Powered Acetabular Revision System (Stryker).

Methods

54mm Stryker Trident® acetabular shells were inserted into the foam acetabula of 24 composite hemi-pelvises (Sawbones). The hemi-pelvises were mounted on a supporting apparatus enclosing three load cells. Strain gauges were placed on the hemipelvis, on the posterior and the anterior wall, and on the internal ischium in proximity to the acetabular fossa. A thermocouple was fixed onto the polar region of the acetabular component. One experienced orthopaedic surgeon and one resident performed mock revision surgery 6 times each per system.