Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1499 - 1504
1 Nov 2009
Herbertsson P Hasserius R Josefsson PO Besjakov J Nyquist F Nordqvist A Karlsson MK

A total of 14 women and seven men with a mean age of 43 years (18 to 68) who sustained a Mason type IV fracture of the elbow, without an additional type II or III coronoid fracture, were evaluated after a mean of 21 years (14 to 46). Primary treatment included closed elbow reduction followed by immobilisation in a plaster in all cases, with an additional excision of the radial head in 11, partial resection in two and suturing of the annular ligament in two. Delayed radial head excision was performed in two patients and an ulnar nerve transposition in one. The uninjured elbows served as controls. Nine patients had no symptoms, 11 reported slight impairment, and one severe impairment of the elbow. Elbow flexion was impaired by a mean of 3° (sd 4) and extension by a mean of 9° (sd 4) (p < 0.01). None experienced chronic elbow instability or recurrent dislocation. There were more degenerative changes in the formerly injured elbows, but none had developed a reduction in joint space.

We conclude that most patients with a Mason type IV fracture of the elbow report a good long-term outcome.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 80-B, Issue 3 | Pages 417 - 425
1 May 1998
Önsten I Nordqvist A Carlsson ÅS Besjakov J Shott S

In a single-blind, randomised series of knee replacements in 116 patients, we used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure micromotion in three types of tibial implant fixation for two years after knee replacement. We compared hydroxyapatite-augmented porous coating, porous coating, and cemented fixation of the same design of tibial component.

At one to two years, porous-coated implants migrated at a statistically significantly higher rate than hydroxyapatite-augmented or cemented implants. There was no significant difference between hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented implants.

We conclude that hydroxyapatite augmentation may offer a clinically relevant advantage over a simple porous coating for tibial component fixation, but is no better than cemented fixation.