Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 7 | Pages 959 - 965
1 Jul 2018
Mackenzie SP Carter TH Jefferies JG Wilby JBJ Hall P Duckworth AD Keating JF White TO

Aims

The Edinburgh Trauma Triage Clinic (TTC) streamlines outpatient care through consultant-led ‘virtual’ triage of referrals and the direct discharge of minor fractures from the Emergency Department. We compared the patient outcomes for simple fractures of the radial head, little finger metacarpal, and fifth metatarsal before and after the implementation of the TTC.

Patients and Methods

A total of 628 patients who had sustained these injuries over a one-year period were identified. There were 337 patients in the pre-TTC group and 289 in the post-TTC group. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH) or Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, satisfaction rates, and return to work/sport were assessed six months post-injury. The development of late complications was excluded by an electronic record evaluation at three years post-injury. A cost analysis was performed.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 4 | Pages 503 - 507
1 Apr 2017
White TO Mackenzie SP Carter TH Jefferies JG Prescott OR Duckworth AD Keating JF

Aims

Fracture clinics are often characterised by the referral of large numbers of unselected patients with minor injuries not requiring investigation or intervention, long waiting times and recurrent unnecessary reviews. Our experience had been of an unsustainable system and we implemented a ‘Trauma Triage Clinic’ (TTC) in order to rationalise and regulate access to our fracture service. The British Orthopaedic Association’s guidelines have required a prospective evaluation of this change of practice, and we report our experience and results.

Patients and Methods

We review the management of all 12 069 patients referred to our service in the calendar year 2014, with a minimum of one year follow-up during the calendar year 2015.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 2 | Pages 249 - 259
1 Feb 2016
Sabharwal S Carter AW Rashid A Darzi A Reilly P Gupte CM

Aims

The aims of this study were to estimate the cost of surgical treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus using a micro-costing methodology, contrast this cost with the national reimbursement tariff and establish the major determinants of cost.

Methods

A detailed inpatient treatment pathway was constructed using semi-structured interviews with 32 members of hospital staff. Its content validity was established through a Delphi panel evaluation. Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the determinants of cost


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 1 | Pages 108 - 112
1 Jan 2009
Chandrasekar CR Grimer RJ Carter SR Tillman RM Abudu A Buckley L

Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur may be required to treat primary bone tumours or destructive metastases either with impending or established pathological fracture. Modular prostheses are available off the shelf and can be adapted to most reconstructive situations for this purpose. We have assessed the clinical and functional outcome of using the METS (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) modular tumour prosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients between 2001 and 2006. We compared the results with the published series for patients managed with modular and custom-made endoprosthetic replacements for the same conditions.

There were 52 males and 48 females with a mean age of 56.3 years (16 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (0 to 60). In 65 patients the procedure was undertaken for metastases, in 25 for a primary bone tumour, and in ten for other malignant conditions. A total of 46 patients presented with a pathological fracture, and 19 presented with failed fixation of a previous pathological fracture. The overall patient survival was 63.6% at one year and 23.1% at five years, and was significantly better for patients with a primary bone tumour than for those with metastatic tumour (82.3% vs 53.3%, respectively at one year (p = 0.003)). There were six early dislocations of which five could be treated by closed reduction. No patient needed revision surgery for dislocation. Revision surgery was required by six (6%) patients, five for pain caused by acetabular wear and one for tumour progression. Amputation was needed in four patients for local recurrence or infection.

The estimated five-year implant survival with revision as the endpoint was 90.7%. The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 61% (51% to 95%). The implant survival and complications resulting from the use of the modular system were comparable to the published series of both custom-made and other modular proximal femoral implants.

We conclude that at intermediate follow-up the modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur replacement provides versatility, a low incidence of implant-related complications and acceptable function for patients with metastatic tumours, pathological fractures and failed fixation of the proximal femur. It also functions as well as a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement.