Aims

Fracture clinics are often characterised by the referral of large numbers of unselected patients with minor injuries not requiring investigation or intervention, long waiting times and recurrent unnecessary reviews. Our experience had been of an unsustainable system and we implemented a ‘Trauma Triage Clinic’ (TTC) in order to rationalise and regulate access to our fracture service. The British Orthopaedic Association’s guidelines have required a prospective evaluation of this change of practice, and we report our experience and results.

With the established success of the National Joint Registry and the emergence of a range of new national initiatives for the capture of electronic data in the National Health Service, orthopaedic surgery in the United Kingdom has found itself thrust to the forefront of an information revolution. In this review we consider the benefits and threats that this revolution poses, and how orthopaedic surgeons should marshal their resources to ensure that this is a force for good.

Aims

A fracture of the hip is the most common serious orthopaedic injury, and surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most significant complications, resulting in increased mortality, prolonged hospital stay and often the need for further surgery. Our aim was to determine whether high dose dual antibiotic impregnated bone cement decreases the rate of infection.

Aims

We aimed to identify the pattern of nerve injury associated with paediatric supracondylar fractures of the humerus.

Fractures of the hip are common, often occurring in frail elderly patients, but also in younger fit healthy patients following trauma. They have a significant associated mortality and major social and financial implications to patients and health care providers. Many guidelines are available for the management of these patients, mostly recommending early surgery for the best outcomes. As a result, healthcare authorities now put pressure on surgical teams to ‘fast track’ patients with a fracture of the hip, often misquoting the available literature, which in itself can be confusing and even conflicting.

This paper has been written following an extensive review of the available literature. An attempt is made to clarify what is meant by early surgery (expeditious versus emergency), and we conclude with a personal view for the practical management of these patients of variable age, fitness and type of surgery performed within services that are often under considerable pressure of finance and available operating theatres and qualified staff.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1573–81.

The ageing population and an increase in both the incidence and prevalence of cancer pose a healthcare challenge, some of which is borne by the orthopaedic community in the form of osteoporotic fractures and metastatic bone disease. In recent years there has been an increasing understanding of the pathways involved in bone metabolism relevant to osteoporosis and metastases in bone. Newer therapies may aid the management of these problems. One group of drugs, the antibody mediated anti-resorptive therapies (AMARTs) use antibodies to block bone resorption pathways. This review seeks to present a synopsis of the guidelines, pharmacology and potential pathophysiology of AMARTs and other new anti-resorptive drugs.

We evaluate the literature relating to AMARTs and new anti-resorptives with special attention on those approved for use in clinical practice.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody against Receptor Activator for Nuclear Factor Kappa-B Ligand. It is the first AMART approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the US Food and Drug Administration. Other novel anti-resorptives awaiting approval for clinical use include Odanacatib.

Denosumab is indicated for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of the complications of bone metastases. Recent evidence suggests, however, that denosumab may have an adverse event profile similar to bisphosphonates, including atypical femoral fractures. It is, therefore, essential that orthopaedic surgeons are conversant with these medications and their safe usage.

Take home message: Denosumab has important orthopaedic indications and has been shown to significantly reduce patient morbidity in osteoporosis and metastatic bone disease.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:160–5.

The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK.¹ This has prompted a drive for efficiency in healthcare provision in the UK, and in 2012, the Health and Social Care Act was introduced, heralding a fundamental change to the structure of the National Health Service, especially in the way that healthcare is funded in England.²

What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed?

In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services.³ We also seek to inform and educate the general orthopaedic community on this topic.

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.

Objectives

High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential.

There have been many advances in the resuscitation and early management of patients with severe injuries during the last decade. These have come about as a result of the reorganisation of civilian trauma services in countries such as Germany, Australia and the United States, where the development of trauma systems has allowed a concentration of expertise and research. The continuing conflicts in the Middle East have also generated a significant increase in expertise in the management of severe injuries, and soldiers now survive injuries that would have been fatal in previous wars. This military experience is being translated into civilian practice.

The aim of this paper is to give orthopaedic surgeons a practical, evidence-based guide to the current management of patients with severe, multiple injuries. It must be emphasised that this depends upon the expertise, experience and facilities available within the local health-care system, and that the proposed guidelines will inevitably have to be adapted to suit the local resources.

Recently the National Patient Safety Agency in the United Kingdom published a report entitled “Mitigating surgical risk in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for fractures of the proximal femur”. A total of 26 deaths had been reported to them when cement was used at hemiarthroplasty between October 2003 and October 2008. This paper considers the evidence for using cement fixation of a hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of hip fractures.

Between December 2004 and June 2006, 136 patients (156 total hip replacements), were sent from the waiting list of the Cardiff Vale NHS Trust to the NHS Treatment Centre, Weston-super-Mare, in an attempt to reduce the waiting time for total hip replacement. Because of concerns about their outcome, each patient was contacted and invited to attend a review appointment with a consultant specialising in hip and revision hip replacement.

A total of 98 patients (113 hips) were reviewed after a mean of 23 months (11 to 30). There were 104 cemented hips, seven hybrid and two cementless. An acetabular inclination of > 55° was seen in 18 (16%). Radiolucent lines around the acetabular component were seen in 76 (67%). The femoral component was in more than 4° of varus in 47 (42%). The medial floor had been breached in 13 (12%) and there was a leg-length discrepancy of more than 1 cm in ten (9%). There were three dislocations, one femoral fracture, one pulmonary embolus, one deep infection and two superficial wound infections.

To date, 13% (15 hips) have been revised and a further 4% (five hips) await revision, mostly for a painful loose acetabular component. The revision rate far exceeds the 0.5% five-year failure rate reported in the Swedish Registry for the components used. This initiative and the consequent need for correction of the problems created, has significantly increased the workload of our unit.