The timing of surgical fixation in spinal fractures is a contentious topic. Existing literature suggests that early stabilization leads to reduced morbidity, improved neurological outcomes, and shorter hospital stay. However, the quality of evidence is low and equivocal with regard to the safety of early fixation in the severely injured patient. This paper compares complication profiles between spinal fractures treated with early fixation and those treated with late fixation. All patients transferred to a national tertiary spinal referral centre for primary surgical fixation of unstable spinal injuries without preoperative neurological deficit between 1 July 2016 and 20 October 2017 were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected retrospectively. Patients were divided into early and late cohorts based on timing from initial trauma to first spinal operation. Early fixation was defined as within 72 hours, and late fixation beyond 72 hours.Aims
Methods
An international faculty of orthopaedic surgeons
presented their work on the current challenges in hip surgery at
the London Hip Meeting which was attended by over
400 delegates. The topics covered included femoroacetabular impingement, thromboembolic
phenomena associated with hip surgery, bearing surfaces (including metal-on-metal
articulations), outcomes of hip replacement surgery and revision
hip replacement. We present a concise report of the current opinions
on hip surgery from this meeting with appropriate references to
the current literature.
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of bilateral simultaneous total hip replacement (THR) and that of staged bilateral THR and unilateral THR was conducted using DerSimonian-Laird heterogeneity meta-analysis. A review of the English-language literature identified 23 citations eligible for inclusion. A total of 2063 bilateral simultaneous THR patients were identified. Meta-analysis of homogeneous data revealed no statistically significant differences in the rates of thromboembolic events (p = 0.268 and p = 0.365) and dislocation (p = 0.877) when comparing staged or unilateral with bilateral simultaneous THR procedures. A systematic analysis of heterogeneous data demonstrated that the mean length of hospital stay was shorter after bilateral simultaneous THR. Higher blood transfusion requirements were expected following bilateral simultaneous THR than staged or unilateral THR, and surgical time was not different between groups. This procedure was also found to be economically and functionally efficacious when performed by experienced surgeons in specialist centres.
