Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 161 - 180 of 1782
Results per page:





The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 2 | Pages 102 - 108
1 Feb 2023
MacDessi SJ Oussedik S Abdel MP Victor J Pagnano MW Haddad FS

Orthopaedic surgeons are currently faced with an overwhelming number of choices surrounding total knee arthroplasty (TKA), not only with the latest technologies and prostheses, but also fundamental decisions on alignment philosophies. From ‘mechanical’ to ‘adjusted mechanical’ to ‘restricted kinematic’ to ‘unrestricted kinematic’ — and how constitutional alignment relates to these — there is potential for ambiguity when thinking about and discussing such concepts. This annotation summarizes the various alignment strategies currently employed in TKA. It provides a clear framework and consistent language that will assist surgeons to compare confidently and contrast the concepts, while also discussing the latest opinions about alignment in TKA. Finally, it provides suggestions for applying consistent nomenclature to future research, especially as we explore the implications of 3D alignment patterns on patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):102–108


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1073 - 1080
1 Sep 2022
Winstanley RJH Hadfield JN Walker R Bretherton CP Ashwood N Allison K Trompeter A Eardley WGP

Aims. The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study was performed to provide clarity in open fracture management previously skewed by small, specialist centre studies and large, unfocused registry investigations. We report the current management metrics of open fractures across the UK. Method. Patients admitted to hospital with an open fracture (excluding phalanges or isolated hand injuries) between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 were included. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture software. All domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Open Fracture Management were recorded. Results. Across 51 centres, 1,175 patients were analyzed. Antibiotics were given to 754 (69.0%) in the emergency department, 240 (22.0%) pre-hospital, and 99 (9.1%) as inpatients. Wounds were photographed in 848 (72.7%) cases. Median time to first surgery was 16 hrs 14 mins (interquartile range (IQR) 8 hrs 29 mins to 23 hrs 19 mins). Complex injuries were operated on sooner (median 12 hrs 51 mins (IQR 4 hrs 36 mins to 21 hrs 14 mins)). Of initial procedures, 1,053 (90.3%) occurred between 8am and 8pm. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon was present at 1,039 (89.2%) first procedures. In orthoplastic centres, a consultant plastic surgeon was present at 465 (45.1%) first procedures. Overall, 706 (60.8%) patients required a single operation. At primary debridement, 798 (65.0%) fractures were definitively fixed, while 734 (59.8%) fractures had fixation and coverage in one operation through direct closure or soft-tissue coverage. Negative pressure wound therapy was used in 235 (67.7%) staged procedures. Following wound closure or soft-tissue cover, 509 (47.0%) patients received antibiotics for a median of three days (IQR 1 to 7). Conclusion. OPEN provides an insight into care across the UK and different levels of hospital for open fractures. Patients are predominantly operated on promptly, in working hours, and at specialist centres. Areas for improvement include combined patient review and follow-up, scheduled operating, earlier definitive soft-tissue cover, and more robust antibiotic husbandry. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1073–1080









The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1392 - 1398
1 Oct 2018
Willeumier JJ van de Sande MAJ van der Wal RJP Dijkstra PDS

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the current trends in the estimation of survival and the preferred forms of treatment of pathological fractures among national and international general and oncological orthopaedic surgeons, and to explore whether improvements in the management of these patients could be identified in this way. Materials and Methods. All members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Society (DOS) and the European Musculoskeletal Oncology Society (EMSOS) were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire containing 12 cases. Results. A total of 96 of 948 members of the DOS (10.1%; groups 1 and 2) and 33 of 182 members of the EMSOS (18%; group 3) replied. The estimation of survival was accurate by more than 50% of all three groups, if the expected survival was short (< 3 months) or long (> 12 months). General orthopaedic surgeons preferred using an intramedullary nail for fractures of the humerus and femur, irrespective of the expected survival or the origin of primary tumour or the location of the fracture. Oncological orthopaedic surgeons recommended prosthetic reconstruction in patients with a long expected survival. Conclusion. Identifying patients who require centralized care, as opposed to those who can be adequately treated in a regional centre, can improve the management of patients with pathological fractures. This differentiation should be based on the expected survival, the type and extent of the tumour, and the location of the fracture. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1392–8






Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 1, Issue 4 | Pages 74 - 79
24 Apr 2020
Baldock TE Bolam SM Gao R Zhu MF Rosenfeldt MPJ Young SW Munro JT Monk AP

Aim. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. Methods. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections. Results. There is a paucity of high quality evidence surrounding COVID-19. This review collates evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks to put forward recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key findings have been summarized and interpreted for application to the orthopaedic operative setting. Conclusion. For COVID-19 positive patients, minimum suggested PPE includes N95 respirator, goggles, face shield, gown, double gloves, and surgical balaclava. Space suits not advised. Be trained in the correct technique of donning and doffing PPE. Use negative pressure theatres if available. Minimize aerosolization and its effects (smoke evacuation and no pulse lavage). Minimize further unnecessary patient-staff contact (dissolvable sutures, clear dressings, split casts)