Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1162 - 1169
1 Sep 2015
George DA Gant V Haddad FS

The number of arthroplasties being undertaken is expected to grow year on year, and periprosthetic joint infections will be an increasing socioeconomic burden. The challenge to prevent and eradicate these infections has resulted in the emergence of several new strategies, which are discussed in this review.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1162–9.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1287 - 1289
1 Oct 2014
Nikiphorou E Konan S MacGregor AJ Haddad FS Young A

There has been an in increase in the availability of effective biological agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis as well as a shift towards early diagnosis and management of the inflammatory process. This article explores the impact this may have on the place of orthopaedic surgery in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1287–9


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1455 - 1456
1 Nov 2012
Oussedik S Gould K Stockley I Haddad FS

Peri-prosthetic infection remains a leading cause of revision surgery. Recent publications from the American Musculoskeletal Infection Society have sought to establish a definition of peri-prosthetic infection based on clinical findings and laboratory investigations. The limitations of their approach are discussed and an alternative definition is proposed, which it is felt may better reflect the uncertainties encountered in clinical practice.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 92-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1294 - 1299
1 Sep 2010
Ashby E Haddad FS O’Donnell E Wilson APR

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.