The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) is validated to predict mortality after fragility neck of femur fractures (NOF). Risk stratification supports informed consent, peri-operative optimisation and case prioritisation. With the inclusion of fragility distal femur fractures (DFF) in the BPT, increasing attention is being placed on the outcome of these injuries. Developing on the lessons learnt over the past decades in NOF management is key. This study assesses the validity of the NHFS in predicting mortality after fragility DFFs. A multi-centre study of 3 high volume fragility fracture units was performed via a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected databases. Patients aged 60 years-of-age who presented with AO 33.A/B/C native DFF, or V.3.A/B periprosthetic DFF over an 86-month period between September 2014 and December 2021 and underwent surgical treatment were eligible for inclusion. Open and/or polytrauma (ISS >15) were excluded. All operations were performed or supervised by Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeons and were reviewed peri-operatively by a 7-day MDT. Patients with a NHFS of gt;=5 were stratified into a high-risk of 30-day mortality cohort, with all others being œlow-risk. 285 patients were eligible for inclusion with 92 considered to be low-risk of 30-day mortality, these tended to be younger female patients admitted from their own homes. 30-day mortality was 0% in the low-risk cohort and 6.2% (12/193) in the high-risk group. 1-year mortality was 8.7% (8/92) and 35.7% (69/193) in the low and high-risk groups respectively. Area Under the Curve (AUC) analyses of Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves demonstrated the greatest ability to predict mortality at 30-days for the high-risk cohort (0.714). The NHFS demonstrates a good ability to predict 30-day mortality in those patients with a NHFS =5 after a surgically managed fragility DFF. With comparable mortality outcomes to those documented from fragility NOF.
Dynamic stabilisation system for the spine relies on titanium screw purchase within the pedicle. Decision on osteointegration is important especially when the patient becomes symptomatic following initial good outcome. From our cohort of 420 Dynesys patients, over all incidence of screw loosening was 17%. Only 35% were symptomatic.
Seven observers composed of two expert orthopaedic spine consultant surgeons and one spine expert consultant radiologist and four Specialist Registrars in orthopaedics and radiology. Data gathered were distributed and presented in tables in the form of descriptive statistics. The evaluation of interobserver agreement was performed by obtaining a Kappa (K) index. For continuous variables comparison, the t test was employed, with a significance level of 0.05.
We are planning to evaluate a 3D computer reconstruction model based on 2 X-ray views at 45 degree angle to each other which might be sensitive to detect screw loosening.
Dynamic stabilisation system for the spine relies on titanium screw purchase within the pedicle. Decision on osteointegration is important especially when the patient becomes symptomatic following initial good outcome. From our cohort of 420 Dynesys patients, over all incidence of screw loosening was 17%. Only 35% were symptomatic.
Seven observers composed of two expert orthopaedic spine consultant surgeons and one spine expert consultant radiologist and four Specialist Registrars in orthopaedics and radiology. Data gathered were distributed and presented in tables in the form of descriptive statistics. The evaluation of interobserver agreement was performed by obtaining a Kappa (K) index. For continuous variables comparison, the t test was employed, with a significance level of 0.05.
We are planning to evaluate a 3D computer reconstruction model based on 2 X-ray views at 45 degree angle to each other which might be sensitive to detect screw loosening.
We report a consecutive series of 352 patients with back pain treated by Dynesys flexible stabilisation between July 2000 and November 2004, to include perceived indications, surgical techniques and complications. A detailed analysis of the first 120 cases with minimum follow up of 2 years is included. Our unit has undertaken 352 operations to date, and this communication reports all cases. Follow up is to 48 months. All patients were profiled prospectively using the Oswestry Disability Index, Euroquol, SF36, Pain analogue scale, Pain chart and modified Zung. The same measuring instruments were used at review for which follow up was 100% The procedure involves paired bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation above and below the level of perceived pathology, with each screw pair connected by load relieving carbopolyurethane flexible spacers, in conjunction with a tension band polyethylene cord passed through the spacer. This construct is then held under tension with screws in the main pedicle screws. All patients are profiled at entry to the hospital service using a proforma which includes the measures outlined above. Conservative treatment is arranged by the centre, and includes physiotherapy to the point of failure. All our cases have failed conservative treatment before enrolling for surgery. There was significant improvement in symptoms for most of the patients in the series. However clear patterns emerged as to those cases in which Dynesys is contra-indicated. This is the largest series of cases reviewed so far in the literature.
INTRODUCTION: 360 degree combined anterior and posterior fusion is an accepted surgical treatment for the management of discogenic back pain. Controversy exists to the optimal technique of posterior fixation. Proponents of translaminar screw fixation cite lower morbidity as a result of less dissection. Despite reports of high fusion rates with this technique, there are concerns over the biomechanical inferiority of this construct compared to pedicle screw fixation. Previous studies on translaminar screws have used only plain radiographs to assess fusion. The objective of this paper is to compare radiographic outcomes, using high definition CT scans, and clinical outcomes between these two methods of posterior fixation. METHODS: During 2001, 31 patients underwent combined anterior and posterior fusion by the two senior surgeons for the management of back pain. Anterior interbody fusion was performed using the Syncage in all patients. 16 patients underwent translaminar screw posterior fixation and 15 underwent pedicle screw posterior fixation. Fusion was assessed by high definition CT scan at one year post-operatively. Function was assessed with pre- and post-operative Low Back Outcome Score and visual analogue scores. RESULTS: Minimum follow-up was 12 months. The incidence of pseudarthrosis in the translaminar group was over 75% which was five times greater than that seen in the pedicle screw group (p = 0.01). There were trends towards greater improvements in the LBOS and VAS scores in the pedicle screw group and amongst those patients who achieved a successful fusion. There were two surgical complications in the translaminar screw group and one in the pedicle screw group. DISCUSSION: With the numbers that are available, there are no clinical differences between the two methods of fixation, although there were trends towards improved function and reduced pain in the pedicle screw group. Furthermore there does not appear to be any difference in regard to complications. However, translaminar screws are associated with a significantly higher rate of pseudarthrosis compared to pedicle screws.
