Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1237 - 1241
1 Sep 2015
Kallala R Haddad FS

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication for patients and results in greatly increased costs of care for both healthcare providers and patients. More than 15 500 revision hip and knee procedures were recorded in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2013, with infection accounting for 13% of revision hip and 23% of revision knee procedures.

We report our experience of using antibiotic eluting absorbable calcium sulphate beads in 15 patients (eight men and seven women with a mean age of 64.8 years; 41 to 83) as part of a treatment protocol for PJI in revision arthroplasty.

The mean follow-up was 16 months (12 to 22). We report the outcomes and complications, highlighting the risk of hypercalcaemia which occurred in three patients.

We recommend that serum levels of calcium be routinely sought following the implantation of absorbable calcium sulphate beads in orthopaedic surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1237–41.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1217 - 1222
1 Sep 2009
King RJ Makrides P Gill JA Karthikeyan S Krikler SJ Griffin DR

We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p < 0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p < 0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). The double marker method demonstrated excellent validity (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89), in contrast to the single marker (0.32).

The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.