header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 93-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1524 - 1528
1 Nov 2011
Bonner TJ Eardley WGP Newell N Masouros S Matthews JJ Gibb I Clasper JC

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of placement of pelvic binders and to determine whether circumferential compression at the level of the greater trochanters is the best method of reducing a symphyseal diastasis.

Patients were identified by a retrospective review of all pelvic radiographs performed at a military hospital over a period of 30 months. We analysed any pelvic radiograph on which the buckle of the pelvic binder was clearly visible. The patients were divided into groups according to the position of the buckle in relation to the greater trochanters: high, trochanteric or low. Reduction of the symphyseal diastasis was measured in a subgroup of patients with an open-book fracture, which consisted of an injury to the symphysis and disruption of the posterior pelvic arch (AO/OTA 61-B/C).

We identified 172 radiographs with a visible pelvic binder. Five cases were excluded due to inadequate radiographs. In 83 (50%) the binder was positioned at the level of the greater trochanters. A high position was the most common site of inaccurate placement, occurring in 65 (39%). Seventeen patients were identified as a subgroup to assess the effect of the position of the binder on reduction of the diastasis. The mean gap was 2.8 times greater (mean difference 22 mm) in the high group compared with the trochanteric group (p < 0.01).

Application of a pelvic binder above the level of the greater trochanters is common and is an inadequate method of reducing pelvic fractures and is likely to delay cardiovascular recovery in these seriously injured patients.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 93-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1217 - 1222
1 Sep 2011
Bonner TJ Eardley WGP Patterson P Gregg PJ

Correct positioning and alignment of components during primary total knee replacement (TKR) is widely accepted to be an important predictor of patient satisfaction and implant durability. This retrospective study reports the effect of the post-operative mechanical axis of the lower limb in the coronal plane on implant survival following primary TKR.

A total of 501 TKRs in 396 patients were divided into an aligned group with a neutral mechanical axis (± 3°) and a malaligned group where the mechanical axis deviated from neutral by > 3°. At 15 years’ follow-up, 33 of 458 (7.2%) TKRs were revised for aseptic loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a weak tendency towards improved survival with restoration of a neutral mechanical axis, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.47).

We found that the relationship between survival of a primary TKR and mechanical axis alignment is weaker than that described in a number of previous reports.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 6 | Pages 772 - 775
1 Jun 2009
Wilson J Bonner TJ Head M Fordham J Brealey S Rangan A

Low-energy fractures of the proximal humerus indicate osteoporosis and it is important to direct treatment to this group of patients who are at high risk of further fracture. Data were prospectively collected from 79 patients (11 men, 68 women) with a mean age of 69 years (55 to 86) with fractures of the proximal humerus in order to determine if current guidelines on the measurement of the bone mineral density at the hip and lumbar spine were adequate to stratify the risk and to guide the treatment of osteoporosis. Bone mineral density measurements were made by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the proximal femur, lumbar spine (L2-4) and contralateral distal radius, and the T-scores were generated for comparison. Data were also collected on the use of steroids, smoking, the use of alcohol, hand dominance and comorbidity.

The mean T-score for the distal radius was −2.97 (sd 1.56) compared with −1.61 (sd 1.62) for the lumbar spine and −1.78 (sd 1.33) for the femur. There was a significant difference between the mean lumbar and radial T scores (1.36 (1.03 to 1.68); p < 0.001) and between the mean femoral and radial T-scores (1.18 (0.92 to 1.44); p < 0.001). The inclusion of all three sites in the determination of the T-score increased the sensitivity to 66% compared with that of 46% when only the proximal femur and lumbar spine were used. This difference between measurements in the upper limb compared with the axial skeleton and lower limb suggests that basing risk assessment and treatment on only the bone mineral density taken at the hip or lumbar spine may misrepresent the extent of osteoporosis in the upper limb and the subsequent risk of fracture at this site.

The assessment of osteoporosis must include measurement of the bone mineral density at the distal radius to avoid underestimation of osteoporosis in the upper limb.