Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 5 | Pages 624 - 633
1 May 2018
Maredza M Petrou S Dritsaki M Achten J Griffin J Lamb SE Parsons NR Costa ML

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of intramedullary nail fixation and ‘locking’ plate fixation in the treatment of extra-articular fractures of the distal tibia.

Patients and Methods

An economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS), based on evidence from the Fixation of Distal Tibia Fractures (UK FixDT) multicentre parallel trial. Data from 321 patients were available for analysis. Costs were collected prospectively over the 12-month follow-up period using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and net monetary benefit. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1232 - 1236
1 Sep 2017
Dahill M McArthur J Roberts GL Acharya MR Ward AJ Chesser TJS

Aims

The anterior pelvic internal fixator is increasingly used for the treatment of unstable, or displaced, injuries of the anterior pelvic ring. The evidence for its use, however, is limited. The aim of this paper is to describe the indications for its use, how it is applied and its complications.

Patients and Methods

We reviewed the case notes and radiographs of 50 patients treated with an anterior pelvic internal fixator between April 2010 and December 2015 at a major trauma centre in the United Kingdom. The median follow-up time was 38 months (interquartile range 24 to 51).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 2 | Pages 152 - 159
1 Feb 2016
Corbacho B Duarte A Keding A Handoll H Chuang LH Torgerson D Brealey S Jefferson L Hewitt C Rangan A

Aims

A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (PROFHER) was conducted in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) hospitals to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in adults.

Methods

A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between surgical and non-surgical treatment groups in costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at two years were used to derive an estimate of the cost effectiveness of surgery using regression methods.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 3 | Pages 391 - 397
1 Mar 2012
Parker MJ Bowers TR Pryor GA

In a randomised trial involving 598 patients with 600 trochanteric fractures of the hip, the fractures were treated with either a sliding hip screw (n = 300) or a Targon PF intramedullary nail (n = 300). The mean age of the patients was 82 years (26 to 104). All surviving patients were reviewed at one year with functional outcome assessed by a research nurse blinded to the treatment used. The intramedullary nail was found to have a slightly increased mean operative time (46 minutes (sd 12.3) versus 49 minutes (sd 12.7), p < 0.001) and an increased mean radiological screening time (0.3 minutes (sd 0.2) versus 0.5 minutes (sd 0.3), p <  0.001). Operative difficulties were more common with the intramedullary nail. There was no statistically significant difference between implants for wound healing complications (p = 1), or need for post-operative blood transfusion (p = 1), and medical complications were similarly distributed in both groups. There was a tendency to fewer revisions of fixation or conversion to an arthroplasty in the nail group, although the difference was not statistically significant (nine versus three cases, p = 0.14). The extent of shortening, loss of hip flexion, mortality and degree of residual pain were similar in both groups. The recovery of mobility was superior for those treated with the intramedullary nails (p = 0.01 at one year from injury).

In summary, both implants produced comparable results but there was a tendency to better return of mobility for those treated with the intramedullary nail.