ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tibial shaft fractures are a relatively common injury and contemporary treatment includes on-axis fixation with a locked intramedullary nail in the majority of cases. The conventional technique is via an infrapatellar approach but currently there is a trend towards the use of a suprapatellar approach. We compared key variables including operative time, radiation exposure and early patient reported outcomes when adopting a suprapatellar approach to tibial nailing in our unit versus our previous experience of infrapatellar tibial nailing. METHOD: Twenty-eight consecutive patients with tibial fracture underwent tibial nailing via the suprapatellar (SPN) approach. Six patients in the study group were excluded due polytrauma and need for dual orthopaedic and plastic surgery management. We compared outcomes with our most recent 20 consecutive patients who had undergone tibial nailing via an infrapatellar (IPN) approach. Primary surgical outcomes were: operative time, radiation exposure and accuracy of entry point of the nail on both anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. Clinical outcomes included time to weightbearing, time to radiographic union and patient-reported outcome score (Lysholm score). RESULTS: Forty-eight consecutive patients underwent intramedullary nail fixation for tibial shaft fractures and 42 were eligible for inclusion in our study (22 SPN vs 20 IPN). There were no significant differences in patient demographics or injury patterns between the two groups. Operative time and radiation exposure were significantly lower in the SPN group when compared to the IPN group (115 min vs 139 min ± 12.5) (36 cGY/cm2 vs 76.33 cGY/cm2 +/- 20.1). Furthermore, patients in the SPN group reported superior outcome scores at a mean follow up of 3 months (8-24 weeks) There were no observed differences in complication rate between groups and time of final clinical follow up at a minimum of 6 months. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that adoption of the SPN approach requires minimal learning curve, and has the potential benefits of reduced operative time, radiation exposure and superior patient reported outcomes when compared to the conventional infrapatellar approach.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have reported the outcome of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) with respect to implant characteristics from non-specialist centres. We report the survival, clinical and radiological outcomes of a single surgeon series of HRA with an average follow-up duration of five years. METHODS: All consecutive HRAs performed by a single surgeon between 2003 and 2011 at a district general hospital were retrospectively examined clinically and radiologically. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients underwent 109 HRAs (58 male [53.2%] and 51 female patients [46.8%]) with a mean follow-up period of 62 months (range: 12-102 months). The median age was 57 years (range: 25-75 years). The mean acetabular and femoral head component sizes were 54 mm (range: 48-64 mm) and 48 mm (range: 42-58 mm) respectively with a mean acetabular inclination angle of 42.9° (range: 20-75°). The survival rate was 95% with five revisions due to aseptic loosening (n=3) and fracture (n=2): these were predominantly for female patients (n=4), with significantly smaller mean acetabular (51 mm, p=0.04) and femoral (44 mm, p=0.02) implant sizes. Furthermore, they had a higher mean acetabular inclination angle of 48.1° (p=0.74). The mean Oxford hip score was 43.8 (range: 25-48) and the mean University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score was 6.8 (range: 3-10). Radiological findings included heterotopic ossification in 13 (11.9%), radiolucent lines in 6 (5.5%), femoral neck thinning in 2 (1.8%) and femoral neck notching in 5 patients (4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that HRA at a non-specialist centre has short to medium-term outcomes comparable with those at specialist centres. HRA therefore remains a viable option although vigilance is required in case selection and follow-up according to national guidance.
