Aims

We wished to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of parathyroid hormone (PTH) supplements to aid healing of trochanteric fractures of the hip, by an open label prospective feasibility and pilot study with a nested qualitative sub study. This aimed to inform the design of a future powered study comparing the functional recovery after trochanteric hip fracture in patients undergoing standard care, versus those who undergo administration of subcutaneous injection of PTH for six weeks.

Controversy exists whether to treat unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures with either intra-medullary or extra-medullary devices. A prospective randomised control trial was performed to compare the outcome of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures stabilised with either a sliding hip screw or long Gamma Nail. The hypothesis was that there is no difference in outcome between the two modes of treatment.

Over a four year period, 210 patients presenting with an unstable pertrochanteric hip fracture (AO/OTA 31 A2) were recruited into the study. Eligible patients were randomised on admission to either long Gamma Nail or sliding hip screw. Follow-up was arranged for three, six, and twelve months. Primary outcome measures were implant failure or ‘cut-out’. Secondary measures included mortality, length of hospital stay, transfusion rate, change in mobility and residence, and EuroQol outcome score.

Five patients required revision surgery for implant cut-out (2.5%), of which three were long Gamma Nails and two were sliding hip screws (no significant difference). There were no incidences of implant failure or deep infection. Tip apex distance was found to correlate with implant cut-out. There was no statistically significant difference in either the EuroQol outcome scores or mortality rates between the two groups when corrected for mini mental score. There was no difference in transfusion rates, length of hospital stay, and change in mobility or residence. There was a clear cost difference between the implants.

The sliding hip screw remains the gold standard in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur.

We present a retrospective study of a consecutive cohort of 109 patients, under the age of 60, who had either a patello-femoral replacement (PFR), uni-compartmental replacement (UKR) or a total knee replacement (TKR). They were operated on by 2 senior surgeons between 2002 and 2006 at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre in Bristol. The aim of this study was to look at the effect of knee replacement on the employment status of this group of patients.

Data were collected from patient’s hospital records and a questionnaire regarding occupational status sent postoperatively to patients. Statistical analysis showed that our groups were similar which meant that further comparison between them was valid.

Eighty two percent of patients who were working prior to surgery and who had either a TKR or UKR were able to return to work postoperatively. Only 54% of those who had a PFR were able to return to work and this was statistically significant when compared with patients in the other two groups p=0.047. The median time for return to work postoperatively for the study population was 12 weeks. Those in the PFR group took significantly longer to do so (20 weeks) compared to those who had either a UKR (11 weeks) or TKR (12 weeks) p=0.01. Patient’s subjective opinion as to their ability to work following knee arthroplasty was worse in the PFR group p=0.049.

This is the first study to compare employment status following patello-femoral, uni-compartmental knee and Total Knee Replacement. TKR and UKR are effective in returning patients to active employment and that this is typically 3 months following surgery. Patients who had a PFR did not experience the same benefits in terms of numbers returning to work, time to do so and their subjective opinion as to their ability to cope with normal duties.

Purpose: After surgeons at a regional centre for orthopaedics began to use a simplified version of multimodal analgesia protocol in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), using intra-operative periarticular infiltration of bupivacaine and epinephrine, it was decided to review which methods of anaesthesia and analgesia were being used in the unit and how effective these were in terms of postoperative analgesic requirements and patient mobility.

Methods: A retrospective casenote review was conducted of 67 consecutive patients undergoing primary TKA. Data were collected in the areas of demographics, anaesthetic analgesia, mobility and length of stay.

Results: Of 67 patients, 31 received periarticular local anaesthetic, 23 underwent femoral nerve block and 13 had neither. Patients who had the periarticular injection required significantly less morphine. In addition, length of stay was shorter and mobility was achieved sooner in these patients.

Discussion: Our technique of periarticular injection is the simplest to be described to date, using injection of bupivacaine and epinephrine alone. Unlike most previous studies, we have shown a significant improvement in postoperative mobility and a reduction in length of hospital stay, as well as confirming previous findings of a reduction in the use of opioids. This study also confirms the efficacy of bupivacaine in periarticular injections, as most previous trials have used ropivacaine, and shows that the technique is practical for use in an NHS orthopaedic unit.

Conclusion: This study has described the use of a simple technique of analgesia by periarticular injection, which has reduced the amount of opiate analgesia required postoperatively, as well as showing benefits in mobility and length of hospital stay.

We performed a retrospective study of a consecutive cohort of 109 patients, under the age of 60 years, who had either a Patellofemoral replacement (PFR), Uni-compartmental replacement (UKR) or a Total knee replacement (TKR). They were operated on by 2 senior surgeons between 2002 and 2006 at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre in Bristol. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the effect of knee replacement on the employment status of this group of patients.

Demographic and diagnostic data were collected from patient’s hospital records and a detailed questionnaire regarding occupational status sent postoperatively. Of the 109 patients, 37 underwent PFR, 31 UKR and 41 TKR. The study population included 38 men and 71 women and the mean age for both sexes was 53 years (range 40–60 years).

82% of patients who were working prior to surgery and who had either a TKR or UKR were able to return to work postoperatively. Only 54% of those who had a PFR were able to return to work and this was statistically significant when compared with patients in the other two groups p=0.47. The median time for return to work postoperatively for the study population was 12 months. Those in the PFR group took significantly longer to do so (20 months) compared to those who had either a UKR (11 months) or TKR (12 months) p=0.01. Patient’s subjective opinion as to their ability to work following knee arthroplasty was worse in the PFR group p=0.049.

This is the first study to compare employment status following Patellofemoral, Unicompartmental knee and Total Knee Replacement. TKR and UKR are effective in returning patients to active employment and this is typically one year following operation. Those patients who had a PFR did not experience the same benefits in terms of numbers returning to work, time to do so and their subjective opinion as to their ability to cope with normal duties.