We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare the outcomes of skin adhesive and staples for skin closure in total hip replacement. The primary outcome was the cosmetic appearance of the scar at three months using a surgeon-rated visual analogue scale. In all, 90 patients were randomised to skin closure using either skin adhesive (n = 45) or staples (n = 45). Data on demographics, surgical details, infection and oozing were collected during the in-patient stay. Further data on complications, patient satisfaction and evaluation of cosmesis were collected at three-month follow-up, and a photograph of the scar was taken. An orthopaedic and a plastic surgeon independently evaluated the cosmetic appearance of the scars from the photographs. No significant difference was found between groups in the cosmetic appearance of scars at three months (p = 0.172), the occurrence of complications (p = 0.3), or patient satisfaction (p = 0.42). Staples were quicker and easier to use than skin adhesive and also less expensive. Skin adhesive and surgical staples are both effective skin closure methods in total hip replacement.
We compared a group of 46 somatised patients with a control group of 41 non-somatised patients who had undergone elective surgery to the lumbar spine in an attempt to identify pre-operative factors which could predict the outcome. In a prospective single-centre study, the Distress and Risk Assessment method consisting of a modified somatic perception questionnaire and modified Zung depression index was used pre-operatively to identify somatised patients. The type and number of consultations were correlated with functional indicators of outcome, such as the Oswestry disability index and a visual analogue score for pain in the leg after follow-up for six and 12 months. Similar improvements in the Oswestry disability index were found in the somatised and non-somatised groups. Somatised patients who had a good outcome on the Oswestry disability index had an increased number of orthopaedic consultations (50 of 83 patients (60%) vs 29 of 73 patients (39.7%); p = 0.16) and waited less time for their surgery (5.5 months) (
Between January 1990 and December 2000 we carried out 226 SB Charité III disc replacements for lumbar disc degeneration in 160 patients. They were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 79 months (31 to 161) to determine the clinical and radiological outcome. The clinical results were collected by an independent observer, who was not involved in patient selection, treatment or follow-up, using a combination of outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index. Pain was recorded using a visual analogue score, and the most recent radiographs were reviewed. Survival of the device was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and showed a cumulative survival of 35% at 156 months when radiological failure was taken as the endpoint. The mean improvement in the Oswestry disability index scores after disc replacement was 14% (6% to 21%) and the mean improvement in the pain score was 1.6 (0.46 to 2.73), both falling below the clinically significant threshold. Removal of the implant was required in 12 patients, four because of implant failure. These poor results indicate that further use of this implant is not justified.
The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.
