The timing of when to remove a circular frame is crucial; early removal results in refracture or deformity, while late removal increases the patient morbidity and delay in return to work. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a staged reloading protocol. We report the incidence of mechanical failure following both single-stage and two stage reloading protocols and analyze the associated risk factors. We identified consecutive patients from our departmental database. Both trauma and elective cases were included, of all ages, frame types, and pathologies who underwent circular frame treatment. Our protocol is either a single-stage or two-stage process implemented by defunctioning the frame, in order to progressively increase the weightbearing load through the bone, and promote full loading prior to frame removal. Before progression, through the process we monitor patients for any increase in pain and assess radiographs for deformity or refracture.Aims
Methods
High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of
evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique
challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence
from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice.
In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential
challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised
controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues,
including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size,
the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise
bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical
randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance
of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding. Cite this article:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a newly described infectious disease caused by the SARS coronavirus which attacks the immune system and pulmonary epithelium. It is treated with regular high doses of corticosteroids. Our aim was to determine the relationship between the dosage of steroids and the number and distribution of osteonecrotic lesions in patients treated with steroids during the SARS epidemic in Beijing, China in 2003. We identified 114 patients for inclusion in the study. Of these, 43 with osteonecrosis received a significantly higher cumulative and peak methylprednisolone-equivalent dose than 71 patients with no osteonecrosis identified by MRI. We confirmed that the number of osteonecrotic lesions was directly related to the dosage of steroids and that a very high dose, a peak dose of more than 200 mg or a cumulative methylprednisolone-equivalent dose of more than 4000 mg, is a significant risk factor for multifocal osteonecrosis with both epiphyseal and diaphyseal lesions. Patients with diaphyseal osteonecrosis received a significantly higher cumulative methylprednisolone-equivalent dose than those with epiphyseal osteonecrosis. Multifocal osteonecrosis should be suspected if a patient is diagnosed with osteonecrosis in the shaft of a long bone.
This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons. Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications. A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left
