Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1570 - 1577
1 Dec 2019
Brock JL Jain N Phillips FM Malik AT Khan SN

Aims. The aim of this study was to characterize the relationship between pre- and postoperative opioid use among patients undergoing common elective orthopaedic procedures. Patients and Methods. Pre- and postoperative opioid use were studied among patients from a national insurance database undergoing seven common orthopaedic procedures using univariate log-rank tests and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results. A total of 98 769 patients were included; 35 701 patients were opioid-naïve, 11 621 used opioids continuously for six months before surgery, and 4558 used opioids continuously for at least six months but did not obtain any prescriptions in the three months before surgery. Among opioid-naïve patients, between 0.76% and 4.53% used opioids chronically postoperatively. Among chronic preoperative users, between 42% and 62% ceased chronic opioids postoperatively. A three-month opioid-free period preoperatively led to a rate of cessation of chronic opioid use between 82% and 93%, as compared with between 31% and 50% with continuous preoperative use (p < 0.001 for significant changes in opioid use before and after surgery in each procedure). Between 5.6 and 20.0 preoperative chronic users ceased chronic use for every new chronic opioid user. Risk factors for chronic postoperative use included chronic preoperative opioid use (odds ratio (OR) 4.84 to 39.75; p < 0.0001) and depression (OR 1.14 to 1.55; p < 0.05 except total hip arthroplasty). With a three-month opioid-free period before surgery, chronic preoperative opioids elevated the risk of chronic opioid use only mildly, if at all (OR 0.47 to 1.75; p < 0.05 for total shoulder arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, and carpal tunnel release). Conclusion. Chronic preoperative opioid use increases the risk of chronic postoperative use, but an opioid-free period before surgery decreases this risk compared with continuous preoperative use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1570–1577


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 1 | Pages 88 - 96
1 Jan 2023
Vogt B Rupp C Gosheger G Eveslage M Laufer A Toporowski G Roedl R Frommer A

Aims

Distraction osteogenesis with intramedullary lengthening devices has undergone rapid development in the past decade with implant enhancement. In this first single-centre matched-pair analysis we focus on the comparison of treatment with the PRECICE and STRYDE intramedullary lengthening devices and aim to clarify any clinical and radiological differences.

Methods

A single-centre 2:1 matched-pair retrospective analysis of 42 patients treated with the STRYDE and 82 patients treated with the PRECICE nail between May 2013 and November 2020 was conducted. Clinical and lengthening parameters were compared while focusing radiological assessment on osseous alterations related to the nail’s telescopic junction and locking bolts at four different stages.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 3 | Pages 293 - 302
1 Mar 2024
Vogt B Lueckingsmeier M Gosheger G Laufer A Toporowski G Antfang C Roedl R Frommer A

Aims

As an alternative to external fixators, intramedullary lengthening nails (ILNs) can be employed for distraction osteogenesis. While previous studies have demonstrated that typical complications of external devices, such as soft-tissue tethering, and pin site infection can be avoided with ILNs, there is a lack of studies that exclusively investigated tibial distraction osteogenesis with motorized ILNs inserted via an antegrade approach.

Methods

A total of 58 patients (median age 17 years (interquartile range (IQR) 15 to 21)) treated by unilateral tibial distraction osteogenesis for a median leg length discrepancy of 41 mm (IQR 34 to 53), and nine patients with disproportionate short stature treated by bilateral simultaneous tibial distraction osteogenesis, with magnetically controlled motorized ILNs inserted via an antegrade approach, were retrospectively analyzed. The median follow-up was 37 months (IQR 30 to 51). Outcome measurements were accuracy, precision, reliability, bone healing, complications, and patient-reported outcome assessed by the Limb Deformity-Scoliosis Research Society Score (LD-SRS-30).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 4 | Pages 434 - 441
1 Apr 2015
Shabani F Farrier AJ Krishnaiyan R Hunt C Uzoigwe CE Venkatesan M

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication.

In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians.

Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41.