Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 141 - 160 of 820
Results per page:
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 89-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1132 - 1132
1 Aug 2007
Goldie BS


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 84-B, Issue 2 | Pages 309 - 310
1 Mar 2002
Campbell D


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 93-B, Issue 4 | Pages 567 - 567
1 Apr 2011
Evans D


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 66-B, Issue 3 | Pages 396 - 407
1 May 1984
Fisk G


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 78-B, Issue 6 | Pages 1000 - 1000
1 Nov 1996
Steel WM


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 86-B, Issue 6 | Pages 935 - 935
1 Aug 2004
Burnett S


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 79-B, Issue 4 | Pages 684 - 690
1 Jul 1997
Garcia-Elias M


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 78-B, Issue 5 | Pages 857 - 857
1 Sep 1996
Fitzgerald JAW


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 37-B, Issue 3 | Pages 453 - 455
1 Aug 1955
Shephard E


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 85-B, Issue 5 | Pages 778 - 778
1 Jul 2003
Mulligan PJ


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 82-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1209 - 1209
1 Nov 2000
Matthewson M


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 70-B, Issue 2 | Pages 328 - 329
1 Mar 1988
Potts H Noble J


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 46-B, Issue 4 | Pages 736 - 736
1 Nov 1964
Watson-Jones R


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 80-B, Issue 3 | Pages 561 - 561
1 May 1998


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 56-B, Issue 1 | Pages 212 - 212
1 Feb 1974
Murray R0


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 78-B, Issue 4 | Pages 664 - 666
1 Jul 1996
Craigen MAC


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 81-B, Issue 5 | Pages 936 - 936
1 Sep 1999
Stanley J


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 8 | Pages 946 - 952
1 Aug 2022
Wu F Zhang Y Liu B

Aims. This study aims to report the outcomes in the treatment of unstable proximal third scaphoid nonunions with arthroscopic curettage, non-vascularized bone grafting, and percutaneous fixation. Methods. This was a retrospective analysis of 20 patients. All cases were delayed presentations (n = 15) or failed nonoperatively managed scaphoid fractures (n = 5). Surgery was performed at a mean duration of 27 months (7 to 120) following injury with arthroscopic debridement and arthroscopic iliac crest autograft. Fracture fixation was performed percutaneously with Kirschner (K)-wires in 12 wrists, a headless screw in six, and a combination of a headless screw and single K-wire in two. Clinical outcomes were assessed using grip strength, patient-reported outcome measures, and wrist range of motion (ROM) measurements. Results. Intraoperatively, established avascular necrosis of the proximal fragment was identified in ten scaphoids. All fractures united within 16 weeks, confirmed by CT. At a mean follow-up of 31 months (12 to 64), there were significant improvements in the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, Mayo Wrist Score, abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, wrist ROM, grip strength, and the patients’ subjective pain score. No peri- or postoperative complications were encountered. Conclusion. Our data indicate that arthroscopic bone grafting and fixation with cancellous autograft is a viable method in the treatment of proximal third scaphoid nonunions, regardless of the vascularity of the proximal fragment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):946–952


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1132 - 1141
1 Oct 2022
Holm-Glad T Røkkum M Röhrl SM Roness S Godang K Reigstad O

Aims. To analyze the short-term outcome of two types of total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) in terms of wrist function, migration, and periprosthetic bone behaviour. Methods. A total of 40 patients suffering from non-rheumatoid wrist arthritis were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing the ReMotion and Motec TWAs. Patient-rated and functional outcomes, radiological changes, blood metal ion levels, migration measured by model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA), bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), complications, loosening, and revision rates at two years were compared. Results. Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) scores, abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) scores, and pain improved similarly and significantly in both groups. Wrist motion improved significantly in the Motec group only, and forearm rotation in the ReMotion group only. Cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) blood ion levels were significantly higher in the metal-on-metal (MoM) Motec group than in the metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) ReMotion group. Mean total translation was 0.65 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.12) and 0.27 mm (95% CI 0.14 to 0.47) for the ReMotion carpal and radial components, and 0.32 mm (95% CI 0.22 to 0.45) and 0.26 mm (95% CI 0.20 to 0.34) for the Motec metacarpal and radial components, respectively. Apart from dorsal and volar tilts, which were significantly higher for the radial ReMotion than for the Motec component, no significant differences in absolute migration occurred. BMD around the radial components never returned to baseline. Almost one-third of patients required reoperation due to complications. Two ReMotion implants were revised to Motec TWAs due to carpal component loosening, and three Motec MoM articulations were revised to metal-on-polyether ether ketone due to painful synovitis. Conclusion. Both implants provided matched function and were stable at short-term follow-up, but with a high complication rate. This procedure should be restricted to specialist centres undertaking prospective analysis until its role is clarified. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1132–1141


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 10 | Pages 920 - 928
21 Oct 2024
Bell KR Oliver WM White TO Molyneux SG Graham C Clement ND Duckworth AD

Aims. The primary aim of this study is to quantify and compare outcomes following a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius in elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) who are managed conservatively versus with surgical fixation (open reduction and internal fixation). Secondary aims are to assess and compare upper limb-specific function, health-related quality of life, wrist pain, complications, grip strength, range of motion, radiological parameters, healthcare resource use, and cost-effectiveness between the groups. Methods. A prospectively registered (ISRCTN95922938) randomized parallel group trial will be conducted. Elderly patients meeting the inclusion criteria with a dorsally displaced distal radius facture will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to either conservative management (cast without further manipulation) or surgery. Patients will be assessed at six, 12, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks post intervention. The primary outcome measure and endpoint will be the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) at 52 weeks. In addition, the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire, pain score (visual analogue scale 1 to 10), complications, grip strength (dynamometer), range of motion (goniometer), and radiological assessments will be undertaken. A cost-utility analysis will be performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery. We aim to recruit 89 subjects per arm (total sample size 178). Discussion. The results of this study will help guide treatment of dorsally displaced distal radial fractures in the elderly and assess whether surgery offers functional benefit to patients. This is an important finding, as the number of elderly distal radial fractures is estimated to increase in the future due to the ageing population. Evidence-based management strategies are therefore required to ensure the best outcome for the patient and to optimize the use of increasingly scarce healthcare resources. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):920–928