Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 87-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 268 - 269
1 Sep 2005
Khan KS MacNiocaill R Clarke F Higgins T O’Kane C Murray P
Full Access

Introduction: The National Bone Bank of Ireland was established in June 1996 at Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Dublin in response to the increased demand of allogenic bone grafts in Ireland. We reviewed the Bone Bank performance since it started with special emphasis on Microbiological monitoring of bone allograft as infection is the main complication of bone allograft (Chapman and Villar 1992).

Material and Methods: The femoral head allograft is harvested from living volunteer donors who are undergoing primary total hip replacement at Cappagh Hospital and have been assessed by the Bone Bank Co-Ordinator.

Harvesting: The bone is retrieved and harvested at the time of total hip replacement according to a strict protocol.

Storage: The bone is stored in the “Quarantine” freezer at −80 degrees C for a minimum period of 180 days. Each specimen is subjected to a full technical review by the Bone Bank Co-Ordinator and Medical Director and only when results of screening confirmed negative, the bone designated suitable for “Issue Stock” freezer.

Issue of Allografts: Bone is supplied for use, only after receiving full details of recipient to allow tracking. The results of the culture swab taken at the time of implantation and details of any post operative infection in recipients are forwarded to the bone bank.

Results: From June 1996 to December 2003, 5089 Primary Total Hip Replacements done at Cappagh Hospital and 1921 (38%) femoral heads were harvested. 109 (5.7%) of grafts had initial positive swabs/chips and 22 of these were discarded because of second positive chips. 1457 femoral head grafts supplied to 876 recipients and were used in Revision Total Hip Replacement (60%), Spine Surgeries (15%), Revision Total Knee (12%), Fractures, Tumours, Foot and Ankle (12%). 6 swabs at the time of grafting in recipients grew Staphylococcus Epidermidis but no clinical infection reported in our follow-up system. To double check, we posted a questioner to all consultants with list and details of their recipient patients and only 2 cases of suspected grafts related infection reported.

Discussion and Conclusion: Microbiological surveillance of bone grafts protect recipients from infection and is useful as a quality control of the process of bone banking (Farrington et al 1998). Our study showed contamination rate of 5.7%. Minimum infection rate post Revision Hip Replacement has been reported by Tomford in 1990, but after massive femoral allograft, infection has been reported 4% – 5% (Tomford 1990) and over 11% by Lord et al in 1988. Our experience showed only 2 cases in spite of strict follow-up protocol. We follow the policy of discarding the heavily contaminated grafts (Chapman 1992).

The quality performance of a Bone Bank depend on a full time bone bank co-ordinator, identification of donors, retrieval and harvesting of grafts, blood and microbiological assessment, medical supervision for decisions about contaminated grafts, a strict follow-up protocol and a regular audit of bone bank (Ivory and Thomas 1993). We also suggest that regular correspondence to the consultant using the bone grafts will improve the accuracy of follow-up.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 86-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 123 - 123
1 Feb 2004
Khan KS SAH S Rafiq T Dolan M Devitt A
Full Access

Introduction: There is still controversy regarding the treatment of acute Lumbar Radicular pain. Most authorities recommend bed rest, anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy (Riew et al JBJS 1982 and Tulder ET AL Spine 22–1997) Comparing the outcome of operative and conservative treatment in selected patients many authors (Weber et al, Hakelius et al) did not find any significant difference after first year and no difference after 4 years. However many patients treated conservatively complains of persistent pain and seek further intervention.

Aim: We did a prospective study to determine the effectiveness of selective nerve root injection in relieving pain in patients with Lumbar radicular pain.

Material and Methods: We included 27 consecutive patients in our study, who had selective nerve root block. Inclusion criteria were Degenerative Lumbar Radicular pain or spinal stenosis, MRI correlating with Lumbar radiculopathy and no benefit from 6 weeks Anti-inflammatory medication, Rest, Physical treatment and activity modification. Informed consent taken from all patients for this study. Each patient was given Low Back Pain outcome score questionnaire of Greenough and Fraser and Oswestry Disability index of Fairbank, to be filled pre and post injection in day ward and at regular intervals up to 3 months post-injection. Adcortyl 20mg with 1 ml of 1% Lignocaine were injected under image in theatre after confirming the site with radioculogram and pain replication.

Results: From the total of 27 patients, 25 (92%) showed improvement in their symptoms in first week. Out of these 25 patients, 18(66%) had long-term improvement and 7(26%) showed short-term relief. Statistically significant improvement at every stage of assessment was observed.

Conclusion: The selective nerve root block combined with careful history, physical examination and quality radiolographic studies, is an important tool in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with predominant Lumbar radicular symptoms. It gives acceptable results in form of pain relief in 3 months. It has a role in lumbar Radicular pain largely in patients where surgery is not appropriate for whatever reasons.