The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, management and survival of unstable pelvic ring injuries in patient aged 65 years or older. Prospectively kept data was analysed from April 2008 to October 2016. Information regarding the mechanism, fracture type, associated injuries, treatment and complications of the treatment were collected. Annual incidence was calculated and a Kaplan Meier survival analysis for carried out at 30 days, 1 year and 5 years. 404 patient records were available. 125 were 65 years or older (60 males and 65 females). 24 (19%) patients required surgical stabilisation to permit mobilisation the remaining 101 patients, treated conservatively were mobilised with immediate weight-bearing under the supervision of a physical therapist with assistive devices. Mean age was 73.5 years (SD 9.9 yrs). Fracture types were − 61.B2 47(37.6%), 61.B1 24(32%), 61.A2 17(13.6%), 61.C1 16(12.8%), 61.C2 5(4%), 61.A1 2(1.6%) and 61.C3 3(2.4%). Mechanisms of injury included fall from standing height − 41 (32%), road traffic collisions − 46(36.8%), fall from higher than standing height − 10(8%), fall from horse − 6(4.8%), jumped from bridge − 3(2.4%) & others 19(15%). Complications in surgical group included 1 death from PE and 1 wound infection treated with vacuum assisted dressing. Survivorship was 91.7%(30 days), 82.5%(1 year) and 49.7%(5 years). Most common fracture type is 61.B2. Over one third of fractures resulted from low energy mechanism. The majority 81% could be managed conservatively. One-year survival figure closely resembles the fracture neck of femur group, highlighting the frailty of this population.
To assess the survival of revision knee replacements at our institution and to identify prognostic factors that predict failure in revision knee surgery. This was a retrospective review of 52 patients who had undergone revision knee surgery as identified by hospital clinical coding. Patient demographics, physiological parameters, reason for revision, type of revision implant and last date of follow up were recorded from the medical records. Implant survival was analysed both from the index primary procedure to revision and from definitive reconstruction at revision to re-operation for any cause.Aim
Materials and methods
The purpose of our study was to examine the survival and functional outcome of endoprosthetic replacements for non-oncology limb salvage purposes. Although initially designed for bone tumours, such is the versatility of these implants they can be used to salvage failed joint replacements, peri-prosthetic fractures, failed internal fixation and non-union. Thirty eight procedures were identified from September 1995 to June 2007 from a prospectively kept database, including 17 distal femoral replacements, 12 proximal femoral replacements, 4 proximal humeral replacements, 2 distal humeral replacements, 2 hemi-pelvic replacements and 1 total femoral replacement. The quality of patients’ mobility was used to assess functional outcome and the survival of the prosthesis was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve. The Kaplan-Meier implant survival was 91.3% at 5 years, 68.5% at 10 years and 45.7% at 20 years. The limb salvage survival for all reconstructions was 75% at 10 years. The best survival was as follows pelvic (n=0/2) and total femoral prostheses where there was no failure in either group (n=0/1). Distal femoral replacements survival was 91% at 5 years, a single humeral prosthesis failed at 11 years post surgery, and proximal femoral replacements had a survival at 87.5% at 5 years. Three implants failed, two as a result of infection and required staged revisions and 1 failed as a result of aseptic loosening. Two patients dislocated their proximal femoral replacements, both were treated successfully by closed reduction. Endoprosthetic replacement appears to be effective and the medium term survival is encouraging. The aim of a pain free functional limb is achievable with this technique. The complication rates are acceptable considering the salvage nature of these patients. We recommend referral of complex cases to a tertiary centre with expertise in this type of surgery.
The 38 procedures were identified from September 1995 to June 2007 and included 17 distal femoral replacements, 12 proximal femoral replacements, 4 proximal humeral replacements, 2 distal humeral replacements, 2 hemi-pelvic replacements and 1 total femoral replacement. EPR survivorship was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve. The quality of patients’ mobility and performance of activities of daily living was used to assess functional outcome.
87.4% of patients who underwent a lower limb EPR achieved a satisfactory or very satisfactory functional outcome. 100% of patients achieved a satisfactory or very satisfactory functional outcome in the upper limb EPR group. 3 implants failed, 2 as a result of infection and required staged revisions, 1 eventually requiring amputation, and 1 failed as a result of aseptic loosening. 2 patients dislocated their proximal femoral replacements, both were treated successfully by closed reduction. Despite the salvage surgery subsequent amputation was only required in one patient.
There are no NICE guidelines for hip arthroplasty follow up. 90% of hip arthroplasty failures do so after 5 years. Joint replacement review is performed by a variety of personnel including orthopaedic surgeons, surgical care practitioners (SCPs) and extended scope practitioners (ESPs). Patients are reviewed in an outpatient clinic or by questionnaire.
Guidance is required for the appropriate review, which will allow early detection of complications in an efficient and cost effective manner. In our trust a protocol has been suggested for the follow up of hip arthroplasty by ESPs and SCPs.
Sensitivity of clinical examination for all tears was 69%, with a specificity of 64% and a positive predictive value of 80%. Individual sensitivities were as follows: grade I 50%, II 76%, III 100%. MRI had a sensitivity of 82.8% for all tears, specificity of 57% and a positive predictive value of 80%. Individual sensitivities: I 69%, II 90%, III 100%.