Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 24 of 24
Results per page:
Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 5 | Pages 7 - 10
1 Oct 2021
Morris DLJ Cresswell T Espag M Tambe AA Clark DI Ollivere BJ


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 1 | Pages 4 - 9
1 Feb 2021
White JJE Manktelow ARJ


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 6 | Pages 5 - 11
1 Dec 2020
Sharma V Turmezei T Wain J McNamara I


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 5 | Pages 4 - 9
1 Oct 2020
Matthews E Waterson HB Phillips JR Toms AD


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 9 - 13
1 Jun 2014
Waterson HB Philips JRA Mandalia VI Toms AD

Mechanical alignment has been a fundamental tenet of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) since modern knee replacement surgery was developed in the 1970s. The objective of mechanical alignment was to infer the greatest biomechanical advantage to the implant to prevent early loosening and failure. Over the last 40 years a great deal of innovation in TKA technology has been focusing on how to more accurately achieve mechanical alignment. Recently the concept of mechanical alignment has been challenged, and other alignment philosophies are being explored with the intention of trying to improve patient outcomes following TKA. This article examines the evolution of the mechanical alignment concept and whether there are any viable alternatives


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 2 | Pages 3 - 6
1 Apr 2020
Myint Y Ollivere B


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 1 | Pages 4 - 9
1 Feb 2020
Logishetty K Muirhead-Allwood SK Cobb JP


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 5 | Pages 4 - 10
1 Oct 2019
Tsoi K Samuel A Jeys LM Ashford RU Gregory JJ


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 3 | Pages 3 - 7
1 Jun 2019
Patel NG Waterson HB Phillips JRA Toms AD


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 4 | Pages 5 - 13
1 Aug 2019
Middleton R Khan T Alvand A


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 7, Issue 5 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Oct 2018
Palan J Bloch BV Shannak O James P


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 6 | Pages 2 - 10
1 Dec 2017
Luokkala T Watts AC


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 4 | Pages 4 - 15
1 Aug 2016
Sehat K

Anatomical total knee arthroplasty alignment versus conventional mechanical alignment; or a combination?


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 1 | Pages 6 - 11
1 Feb 2015
Manktelow A Bloch B

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 4 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Aug 2015
Nicol S Jackson M Monsell F

This review explores recent advances in fixator design and used in contemporary orthopaedic practice including the management of bone loss, complex deformity and severe isolated limb injury.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 2 | Pages 2 - 6
1 Apr 2015
Lever CJ Robinson AHN

Ankle replacements have improved significantly since the first reported attempt at resurfacing of the talar dome in 1962. We are now at a stage where ankle replacement offers a viable option in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. As the procedure becomes more successful, it is important to reflect and review the current surgical outcomes. This allows us to guide our patients in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. What is the better surgical treatment – arthrodesis or replacement?


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 1 | Pages 2 - 5
1 Feb 2015
Wright GM Porteous MJ


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 5 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Oct 2014
Unsworth-Smith T Wood D

Obesity is a global epidemic of 2.1 billion people and a well known cause of osteoarthritis. Joint replacement in the obese attracts more complications, poorer outcomes and higher revision rates. It is a reversible condition and the fundamental principles of dealing with reversible medical conditions prior to elective total joint replacement should apply to obesity. The dilemma for orthopaedic surgeons is when to offer surgery in the face of a reversible condition, which if treated may obviate joint replacement and reduce the risk and severity of obesity related disease in both the medical arena and the field of orthopaedics.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 5 | Pages 8 - 12
1 Oct 2013
Phillips JRA

Not all questions can be answered by prospective randomised controlled trials. Registries were introduced as a way of collecting information on joint replacements at a population level. They have helped to identify failing implants and the data have also been used to monitor the performance of individual surgeons. This review aims to look at some of the less well known registries that are currently being used worldwide, including those kept on knee ligaments, ankle arthroplasty, fractures and trauma.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 1, Issue 3 | Pages 5 - 6
1 Jun 2012
Grimer RJ Jeys LM

Amputation was once widely practised for primary bone tumours of the limbs. Yet this situation has changed with limb salvage surgery becoming increasingly popular in the last 30 years. Many different techniques are now available. These include allografts, autografts, endoprostheses and allograft-prosthesis composites. This article reviews these methods, concentrating on the functional outcomes and complications that have been reported.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 2 - 8
1 Jun 2014
Phillips JRA Waterson HB Searle DJ Mandalia VI Toms AD

This is the second of a series of reviews of registries. This review looks specifically at worldwide registry data that have been collected on knee arthroplasty, what we have learned from their reports, and what the limitations are as to what we currently know.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 3 | Pages 6 - 14
1 Jun 2013
Wallace WA

In the UK we have many surgeon inventors – surgeons who innovate and create new ways of doing things, who invent operations, who design new instruments to facilitate surgery or design new implants for using in patients. However truly successful surgeon inventors are a rare breed and they need to develop additional knowledge and skills during their career in order to push forward their devices and innovations. This article reviews my own experiences as a surgeon inventor and the highs and lows over the whole of my surgical career.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 3 | Pages 2 - 5
1 Jun 2013
McNamara K

According to a report by Millennium Research Group in January 2011, the US orthopaedic extremity device market will generate over $4.6 billion in revenue by 2015.1 With an ageing demographic and increasing demand for better quality of life into old age, there is clearly a commercial drive for the orthopaedic device community to develop new and innovative solutions to bone and joint problems. Devising such solutions is one thing; protecting them, so that research investment can be rewarded, is another. How is such protection achieved? The judicious use of intellectual property rights plays a key role, and this article aims to provide some information about the use of patents to protect innovation.