Malalignment is a common complication following tibial surgery, occurring in 10% of fractures. This is associated with prolonged healing time and non-union. It occurs due to inability to maintain a satisfactory reduction. A reduction device, such as the Staffordshire Orthopaedic Reduction Machine (STORM), permits the surgeon to manipulate the fracture and hold it reduced.

A retrospective parallel case series was undertaken of all patients undergoing tibial nails over a six-year period from 2014 to 2021. Patient demographics were obtained from medical records. Operative times obtained from the theatre IT system and included the time patient entered theatre and surgical start and finish times for each case.

Anteroposterior and lateral long leg post-operative radiographs were reviewed. Angulation was measured in both coronal and sagittal planes, by two separate orthopaedic surgeons. A reduction was classified to be ‘mal-aligned’ if the angle measured was greater than 5 degrees. One tailed unpaired t-test was used to compare alignment in each plane. Bony union was assessed on subsequent radiographs and was determined according to the Radiographic Union Score for Tibial Fractures

31 patients underwent tibial nail during the time period. 8 patients were lost to follow up and were excluded. Of the remaining 23 patients, the STORM device was utilised in 11.

The overall mean alignment was acceptable across all groups at 2.17° in the coronal plane and 2.56° in the saggital plane. Analysing each group individually demonstrated an improved alignment when STORM was utilised: 1.7° (1°–3°) vs 2.54° (0°–5°) for the coronal plane and 1.6° (0°–3°) vs 3.31° (0°–9°) in the saggital plane. This difference was significant in saggital alignment (p=0.03) and showed a positive trend in coronal alignment, although was not significant (p=0.08)

The time in theatre was shorter in the control group with a mean of 113 minutes (65 to 219) in comparison to STORM with a mean of 140 minutes (105 to 180), an increased theatre time of 27 minutes (p=0.04).

This study demonstrates that STORM can be used in the surgical treatment of tibial fractures resulting in improved fracture alignment with a modest increase in theatre time.

Background

Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure research outcomes are patient-centred and to maximise research value and impact. The Musculoskeletal (MSK) Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across MSK disorders.

Aims

Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) for patients with symptomatic meniscal loss has demonstrated good clinical results and survivorship. Factors that affect both functional outcome and survivorship have been reported in the literature. These are typically single-centre case series with relatively small numbers and conflicting results. Our aim was to describe an international, two-centre case series, and identify factors that affect both functional outcome and survival.

Background

There is a 20% dissatisfaction rate with knee replacements. Calls for tools that can pre-operatively identify patients at risk of being dissatisfied postoperatively have been widespread. However, it is unclear what sort of information patients would want from such a tool, how it would affect their decision making process, and at what part of the pathway such a tool should be used.

Background

Knee replacement surgery is currently facing three dilemmas: a high dissatisfaction rate; increasing demand with financial constraints; and variation in utilisation. A patient centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision-making, has the potential to help address these dilemmas. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision-making. This is the first study examining decision-making in knee replacements that includes patients at different stages of decision-making – this is critical when considering decision-making as a process. We base our findings in a theoretical model, proposed by Elwyn et al, that highlights the distinction between deliberation and decision-making, and propose modifications to this model specific to knee replacement decision-making.

Background

Total Knee Replacement (TKR) is an effective treatment for knee arthritis. One long held principle of TKRs is positioning the components in alignment with the mechanical axis to restore the overall limb alignment to 180 ± 3 degrees. However, this view has been challenged recently. Given the high number of replacements performed, clarity on this integral aspect is necessary. Our objective was to investigate the association between malalignment and outcome (both PROMs and revision) following primary TKR.

Background

Multiple randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that arthroscopy provides little benefit in patients with knee osteoarthritis. In 2008, NICE released guidelines to reflect this evidence. Implementation has been sporadic, and arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis is commonly performed with an annual incidence of 9.9 per 10,000 in England. Our aim was to establish whether previous arthroscopy affects Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Total Knee Replacement (TKR) patients.

Objectives

A patient-centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision making, has the potential to help improve decision making around knee arthroplasty surgery. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision making. This review’s objective is to systematically examine the qualitative literature surrounding patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasty.

Introduction

The Patient Archiving and Communication System (PACS) has revolutionised the way that radiographs are stored and viewed in orthopaedic surgery. A recent advance has been the ability to upload images directly from the image intensifier to PACS. We postulated that this facility may reduce the need for post operative ‘check’ radiographs following many orthopaedic trauma procedures.