Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 2 | Pages 178 - 188
1 Feb 2019
Chaudhary MM Lakhani PH

Aims

Double-level lengthening, bone transport, and bifocal compression-distraction are commonly undertaken using Ilizarov or other fixators. We performed double-level fixator-assisted nailing, mainly for the correction of deformity and lengthening in the same segment, using a straight intramedullary nail to reduce the time in a fixator.

Patients and Methods

A total of 23 patients underwent this surgery, involving 27 segments (23 femora and four tibiae), over a period of ten years. The most common indication was polio in ten segments and rickets in eight; 20 nails were inserted retrograde and seven antegrade. A total of 15 lengthenings were performed in 11 femora and four tibiae, and 12 double-level corrections of deformity without lengthening were performed in the femur. The mean follow-up was 4.9 years (1.1 to 11.4). Four patients with polio had tibial lengthening with arthrodesis of the ankle. We compared the length of time in a fixator and the external fixation index (EFI) with a control group of 27 patients (27 segments) who had double-level procedures with external fixation. The groups were matched for the gain in length, age, and level of difficulty score.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1168 - 1176
1 Sep 2019
Calder PR McKay JE Timms AJ Roskrow T Fugazzotto S Edel P Goodier WD

Aims

The Precice intramedullary limb-lengthening system has demonstrated significant benefits over external fixation lengthening methods, leading to a paradigm shift in limb lengthening. This study compares outcomes following antegrade and retrograde femoral lengthening in both adolescent and adult patients.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was undertaken of a consecutive series of 107 femoral lengthening operations in 92 patients. In total, 73 antegrade nails and 34 retrograde nails were inserted. Outcome was assessed by the regenerate healing index (HI), hip and knee range of movement (ROM), and the presence of any complications.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 4 | Pages 434 - 441
1 Apr 2015
Shabani F Farrier AJ Krishnaiyan R Hunt C Uzoigwe CE Venkatesan M

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication.

In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians.

Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41.