Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 17 of 17
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1681 - 1687
1 Dec 2014
Foruria AM Lawrence TM Augustin S Morrey BF Sanchez-Sotelo J

We retrospectively reviewed 89 consecutive patients (45 men and 44 women) with a mean age at the time of injury of 58 years (18 to 97) who had undergone external fixation after sustaining a unilateral fracture of the distal humerus. Our objectives were to determine the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO); identify risk factors associated with the development of HO; and characterise the location, severity and resultant functional impairment attributable to the presence of HO. . HO was identified in 37 elbows (42%), mostly around the humerus and along the course of the medial collateral ligament. HO was hazy immature in five elbows (13.5%), mature discrete in 20 (54%), extensive mature in 10 (27%), and complete bone bridges were present in two elbows (5.5%). Mild functional impairment occurred in eight patients, moderate in 27 and severe in two. HO was associated with less extension (p = 0.032) and less overall flexion-to-extension movement (p = 0.022); the flexion-to-extension arc was < 100º in 21 elbows (57%) with HO compared with 18 elbows (35%) without HO (p = 0.03). HO was removed surgically in seven elbows. . The development of HO was significantly associated with sustaining a head injury (p = 0.015), delayed internal fixation (p = 0.027), the method of fracture fixation (p = 0.039) and the use of bone graft or substitute (p = 0.02).HO continues to be a substantial complication after internal fixation for distal humerus fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1681–7


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 12, Issue 2 | Pages 28 - 31
1 Apr 2023

The April 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic Bankart repair in athletes: in it for the long run?; Functional outcomes and the Wrightington classification of elbow fracture-dislocations; Hemiarthroplasty or ORIF intra-articular distal humerus fractures in older patients; Return to sport after total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty; Readmissions after shoulder arthroplasty; Arthroscopic Bankart repair in the longer term; Bankart repair with(out) remplissage or the Latarjet procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis; Regaining motion among patients with shoulder pathology: are all exercises equal?


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 2 | Pages 110 - 119
21 Feb 2023
Macken AA Prkić A van Oost I Spekenbrink-Spooren A The B Eygendaal D

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry.

Methods

All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 11, Issue 11 | Pages 814 - 825
14 Nov 2022
Ponkilainen V Kuitunen I Liukkonen R Vaajala M Reito A Uimonen M

Aims

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates.

Methods

PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported incidence rate (or count with population at risk), contained data on adult population, and were written in English language. The number of cases and population at risk were collected, and the pooled incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using either a fixed or random effects model.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 11, Issue 3 | Pages 29 - 32
1 Jun 2022


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 13, Issue 2 | Pages 41 - 44
1 Apr 2024

The April 2024 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup360 looks at: Ultrasonography or radiography for suspected paediatric distal forearm fractures?; Implant density in scoliosis: an important variable?; Gait after paediatric femoral shaft fracture treated with intramedullary nail fixation: a longitudinal prospective study; The opioid dilemma: navigating pain management for children’s bone fractures; 12- to 20-year follow-up of Dega acetabuloplasty in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip; Physeal fractures of the distal ulna: incidence and risk factors for premature growth arrest; Analysis of growth after transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in children; Management of lateral condyle humeral fracture associated with elbow dislocation in children: a retrospective international multicentre cohort study.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 8 | Pages 963 - 971
1 Aug 2022
Sun Z Liu W Liu H Li J Hu Y Tu B Wang W Fan C

Aims

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a common complication after elbow trauma and can cause severe upper limb disability. Although multiple prognostic factors have been reported to be associated with the development of post-traumatic HO, no model has yet been able to combine these predictors more succinctly to convey prognostic information and medical measures to patients. Therefore, this study aimed to identify prognostic factors leading to the formation of HO after surgery for elbow trauma, and to establish and validate a nomogram to predict the probability of HO formation in such particular injuries.

Methods

This multicentre case-control study comprised 200 patients with post-traumatic elbow HO and 229 patients who had elbow trauma but without HO formation between July 2019 and December 2020. Features possibly associated with HO formation were obtained. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model was used to optimize feature selection. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to build the new nomogram: the Shanghai post-Traumatic Elbow Heterotopic Ossification Prediction model (STEHOP). STEHOP was validated by concordance index (C-index) and calibration plot. Internal validation was conducted using bootstrapping validation.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 11, Issue 4 | Pages 25 - 29
1 Aug 2022


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 11, Issue 2 | Pages 31 - 34
1 Apr 2022


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 4 | Pages 31 - 34
1 Aug 2021


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 1 | Pages 28 - 31
1 Feb 2021


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 3 | Pages 20 - 23
1 Jun 2021


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


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 4 | Pages 30 - 33
1 Aug 2020


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 6 | Pages 1 - 1
1 Dec 2015
Ollivere B


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 6 | Pages 18 - 19
1 Dec 2015

The December 2015 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup360 looks at:


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 5 | Pages 583 - 597
1 May 2013
Kurien T Pearson RG Scammell BE

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.