Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_4 | Pages 21 - 21
1 Apr 2022
Chatterji U Puttock D Sandean D Kheiran A Mundy G Menon D Brown A
Full Access

There is sufficient evidence that specialised orthopaedic services, in the form of ‘hub’ or specialist centres, which undertake a high volume of workload in revision arthroplasty generate superior outcomes.

The East Midlands South Orthopaedic Network (EMSSON) was set up in 2015 and is an example of a ‘hub and spoke’ network. The network has recently undergone adaptation in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is paucity of data considering the impact of such adaptations in a post-pandemic era and on adherence to advice given.

Two data sets were obtained from the EMSSON data base, pertaining to pre and post pandemic eras respectively. Datasets were analysed and compared for case volumes, proportion of overall arthroplasty volume discussed and adherence to agreed management plans.

Dataset one included 107 cases, of these 99 cases were discussed (54 knees and 45 hips). This equates to 35% of total revision arthroplasty volume recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR), by units involved in the network. A change of plan was recommended in 45/99 cases (45%), of these 41 (93%) were adhered to. Dataset two included 99 cases, of these 98 were discussed (39 knees and 59 hips). This equates 68% of revision arthroplasty volume performed by the region according to NJR records. A change in plan was recommended in 20 cases (20.5%), all of which were adhered to. One case was referred to the ‘hub’ for surgery.

Following the implementation of recent adaptations, the efficiency of the EMSSON network has significantly improved. A greater volume and proportion of revision arthroplasty cases are now being discussed on a weekly basis. Management plans for which adaptations are suggested have decreased, indicating an educational value of such networking practices. Adherence to agreed plans also showed improvement (p<0.03).

These findings demonstrate a trend towards NHS England's target of 100% of revision arthroplasty cases undergoing MDT discussion. Changes made in light of the Covid-pandemic, are felt to have contributed significantly to the overall performance of regional networking and have been well received by consultants involved.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_14 | Pages 8 - 8
1 Jul 2016
Sheikh N Mundy G
Full Access

The dual mobility (DM) bearing concept was introduced to reduce the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our aim was to evaluate the early outcomes following the utilisation of DM in primary and revision THA in our unit.

Prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing a DM bearing at was reviewed between July 2012and December 2015. The primary outcome assessed was dislocation, with a secondary outcome revision for any reasons. All data was gathered from patient clinical records and the digital picture archiving and communication system (PACS)

30 primary THA were undertaken and 54 revision THAin the time period described. 11 of the procedures involved a proximal femoral endoprosthesis. The mean age in the primary setting was 65 and 73 in the revision population. The main indications for using DM bearing in the primary setting were; trauma (40%), residual dysplasia (40%) and malignancy (17%). There were no dislocations in the primary THA category. Indications in the revision THA cohort included 33% for aseptic loosening, 11% for instability, 18% for ALVAL reactions, 20% for infection, 18% for fracture. 1 out of the 54 revision THA had one large bearing dislocation requiring closed reduction. Subsequent analysis confirmed that implant alignment was satisfactory and this was a patient compliance issue due to mental health concerns. To date no patient in either cohort required revision surgery. Overall dislocation rate was 1.2%.

Our early experience with DM bearings has been positive with no evidence of early failure or loosening. The dislocation rate overall has been low and matches the current large series in the literature.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 11 - 11
1 Mar 2008
Mundy G Esler C Harper W
Full Access

Approximately 10% of primary hip replacements performed each year for osteoarthritis are in patients aged 55 or less. These patients have a longer life expectancy and a higher activity level than an elder cohort, which may translate to higher revision rates.

We utilized a regional hip register (Trent and Welsh Arthroplasty Audit Group (TWAAG)) to review current surgical practice in this age group. The TWAAG group comprises 118 surgeons working in 31 different hospitals covering a population of 8 million (14.2% of the population).

1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002, we were notified of 7,678 primary THRs for osteoarthritis. 911 (11.7%) were performed on patients aged 55 or less. Age, gender, grade of lead operating surgeon, type of femoral and acetabular prosthesis implanted, fixation method, femoral head size and bearing surfaces were recorded. There were 434 males, 477 females, with an age range of 16–55. Thirty-five femoral and thirty-three acetabular components were identified. 61.7% of femoral prostheses were cemented. 67.4 % of acetabular prostheses were uncemented. 30% of THRs implanted in the group over the study period were hybrid. 50% of implants had a metal/UHMWPE bearing. Other bearing surfaces comprised ceramic/UHMWPE 28.7%, metal/ metal resurfacing 13.8% and ceramic/ceramic 7.5%. Consultants performed 84.5% of procedures.

Femoral prostheses with little or no published data are used and, unless closely monitored, such practices will not be compliant with NICE recommendations. 40% of THRs performed had components implanted that were produced by different manufacturers. At the present time there does not appear to be a clear picture as to what is the ‘gold’ standard for young patients. Continued monitoring of these implants is essential to provide feedback and drive choice.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 88-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 182 - 182
1 Mar 2006
Mundy G Birtwistle S Power R
Full Access

120 patients undergoing primary TKR/THR were randomised to receive ferrous sulphate (FS) or placebo (P) for three weeks following their arthroplasty. Haemoglobin levels and absolute reticulocyte counts were measured at days 1 and 5, and weeks 3 and 6. Ninety-nine patients FS (50), P (49) completed the study. The two groups differed only in treatment administered. Haemoglobin recovery was similar at day 5 and by week 3, haemoglobin levels recovered to 85% of their pre-operative levels, irrespective of treatment group. A small but greater recovery in haemoglobin level was identified at 6 weeks in the FS group for females (6% Vs 3%) and males (5% Vs 1.5%). The clinical significance of this is questionable and may be outweighed by the high incidence of reported side effects of oral iron, and the economic costs of the medication. Administration of iron supplements following elective TKR or THR does not appear to be a worthwhile practice.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 85-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 61 - 61
1 Jan 2003
Mundy G Esler CNA Harper WM
Full Access

Purpose: To determine the current arthroplasty practice in osteoarthritic patients aged 55yrs or less for the population registered on the Trent & Wales Arthroplasty Database and stimulate debate. Is there a ‘gold standard’? If there is what is it ?

Method: The Trent Arthroplasty Audit Group collects prospective data on all hip arthroplasty surgery performed in Trent Region & North & West Wales (population 6.2 million). In 2000/2001 9.4% of the primary T.H.Rs and 14.1% of the revision T.H.Rs were aged 55yrs or less. We analysed the database to produce the following results.

Results: In 2000/01 385 primary T.H.Rs were performed on patients aged< 55yrs. 52% of the patients were male, the mean age at surgery was 48.3 yrs (Range 30–55yrs). 12% of the patients had a metal on metal hip resurfacing implant. In 39% both the femoral and acetabular components were uncemented. 14% had a hybrid combination. In 36% of cases the femoral and acetabular components were made by different manufacturers.

The bearing surfaces chosen were: metal / metal in 13%, metal on poly in 56%, ceramic on poly in 28% (Zirconia in 7.4%) and ceramic on ceramic in 3%. Low viscosity cement was used with 28% of femoral components and 19% of acetabular components. The predominant femoral head size was 28 mm.(49%) (22mm in 23%).

Conclusion: Surgeons strive to use up-to-date technology in young patients in an attempt to prolong the life of their hip replacement. At the present time we don’t appear to have a clear picture as to what is the ‘gold standard’ for young patients. How much evidence do we need before implanting a new implant or combination?