Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 361 - 380 of 667
Results per page:
Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 7, Issue 1 | Pages 22 - 24
1 Feb 2018


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 7, Issue 1 | Pages 25 - 27
1 Feb 2018


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 3 | Pages 205 - 212
1 Mar 2018
Lin Y Hall AC Simpson AHRW

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to create a novel ex vivo organ culture model for evaluating the effects of static and dynamic load on cartilage.

Methods

The metatarsophalangeal joints of 12 fresh cadaveric bovine feet were skinned and dissected aseptically, and cultured for up to four weeks. Dynamic movement was applied using a custom-made machine on six joints, with the others cultured under static conditions. Chondrocyte viability and matrix glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content were evaluated by the cell viability probes, 5-chloromethylfluorescein diacetate (CMFDA) and propidium iodide (PI), and dimethylmethylene blue (DMMB) assay, respectively.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 6 | Pages 14 - 16
1 Dec 2017


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 1 | Pages 20 - 27
1 Jan 2018
Sabah SA Moon JC Jenkins-Jones S Morgan CL Currie CJ Wilkinson JM Porter M Captur G Henckel J Chaturvedi N Kay P Skinner JA Hart AH Manisty C

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types of arthroplasties (non-MoM).

Patients and Methods

A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data from all patients and from those matched by propensity score.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 3 | Pages 36 - 37
1 Jun 2016
Das A


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 11 | Pages 631 - 639
1 Nov 2017
Blyth MJG Anthony I Rowe P Banger MS MacLean A Jones B

Objectives

This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group.

Methods

A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided robotic arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1003 - 1005
1 Aug 2017
Todd NV

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued guidelines that state fusion for non-specific low back pain should only be performed as part of a randomised controlled trial, and that lumbar disc replacement should not be performed. Thus, spinal fusion and disc replacement will no longer be routine forms of treatment for patients with low back pain. This annotation considers the evidence upon which these guidelines are based.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1003–1005.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 5 | Pages 12 - 16
1 Oct 2017


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 1 | Pages 34 - 35
1 Feb 2016
Das A


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 5 | Pages 37 - 38
1 Oct 2016
Das A


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1420 - 1430
1 Nov 2017
Azboy I Barrack R Thomas AM Haddad FS Parvizi J

The number of arthroplasties being performed increases each year. Patients undergoing an arthroplasty are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and appropriate prophylaxis has been recommended. However, the optimal protocol and the best agent to minimise VTE under these circumstances are not known. Although many agents may be used, there is a difference in their efficacy and the risk of bleeding. Thus, the selection of a particular agent relies on the balance between the desire to minimise VTE and the attempt to reduce the risk of bleeding, with its undesirable, and occasionally fatal, consequences.

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is an agent for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty. Many studies have shown its efficacy in minimising VTE under these circumstances. It is inexpensive and well-tolerated, and its use does not require routine blood tests. It is also a ‘milder’ agent and unlikely to result in haematoma formation, which may increase both the risk of infection and the need for further surgery. Aspirin is also unlikely to result in persistent wound drainage, which has been shown to be associated with the use of agents such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and other more aggressive agents.

The main objective of this review was to summarise the current evidence relating to the efficacy of aspirin as a VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty, and to address some of the common questions about its use.

There is convincing evidence that, taking all factors into account, aspirin is an effective, inexpensive, and safe form of VTE following arthroplasty in patients without a major risk factor for VTE, such as previous VTE.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1420–30.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 1_Supple_A | Pages 89 - 94
1 Jan 2016
Cherian JJ Jauregui JJ Leichliter AK Elmallah RK Bhave A Mont MA

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various non-operative modalities of treatment (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS); neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES); insoles and bracing) on the pain of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify the therapeutic options which are commonly adopted for the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

The outcome measurement tools used in the different studies were the visual analogue scale and The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain index: all pain scores were converted to a 100-point scale.

A total of 30 studies met our inclusion criteria: 13 on insoles, seven on TENS, six on NMES, and four on bracing. The standardised mean difference (SMD) in pain after treatment with TENS was 1.796, which represented a significant reduction in pain. The significant overall effect estimate for NMES on pain was similar to that of TENS, with a SMD of 1.924. The overall effect estimate of insoles on pain was a SMD of 0.992. The overall effect of bracing showed a significant reduction in pain of 1.34.

Overall, all four non-operative modalities of treatment were found to have a significant effect on the reduction of pain in OA of the knee.

This study shows that non-operative physical modalities of treatment are of benefit when treating OA of the knee. However, much of the literature reviewed evaluates studies with follow-up of less than six months: future work should aim to evaluate patients with longer follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):89–94.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 4 | Pages 16 - 18
1 Aug 2017


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1183 - 1189
1 Sep 2017
Cho BK Kim YM Choi SM Park HW SooHoo NF

Aims

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the intermediate-term outcomes after revision anatomical ankle ligament reconstruction augmented with suture tape for a failed modified Broström procedure.

Patients and Methods

A total of 30 patients with persistent instability of the ankle after a Broström procedure underwent revision augmented with suture tape. Of these, 24 patients who were followed up for more than two years were included in the study. There were 13 men and 11 women. Their mean age was 31.8 years (23 to 44). The mean follow-up was 38.5 months (24 to 56) The clinical outcome was assessed using the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) score. The stability of the ankle was assessed using stress radiographs.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 4 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Aug 2017
Titchener AG Tambe AA Clark DI


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 5 | Pages 27 - 29
1 Oct 2016


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 6 | Pages 708 - 713
1 Jun 2017
Rushton PRP Siddique I Crawford R Birch N Gibson MJ Hutton MJ

The MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) system is used increasingly in the management of early-onset scoliosis. Good results have been published, but there have been recent reports identifying implant failures that may be associated with significant metallosis surrounding the implants. This article aims to present the current knowledge regarding the performance of this implant, and the potential implications and strategies that may be employed to identify and limit any problems.

We urge surgeons to apply caution to patient and construct selection; engage in prospective patient registration using a spine registry; ensure close clinical monitoring until growth has ceased; and send all explanted MAGEC rods for independent analysis.

The MAGEC system may be a good instrumentation system for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. However, it is innovative and like all new technology, especially when deployed in a paediatric population, robust systems to assess long-term outcome are required to ensure that patient safety is maintained.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:708–13.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 2 | Pages 40 - 42
1 Apr 2017
McQuater J


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 2 | Pages 37 - 38
1 Apr 2015
Das A