A comparison of risk profile for orthopaedic operations when utilizing individually wrapped screws (IWS) when compared with sterile screw caddies (screw racks).

INTRODUCTION: There has been a global trend towards individually packaged screws for orthopaedic operations. Traditional practice makes use of screw caddies that require re-sterilization. Individually wrapped screws (IWS) are purported to decrease infection rates and avoid the deleterious effects of repeated screw sterilizations, despite marginal evidence. This review aimed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and economics of screw caddies with IWS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The literature was surveyed in a systematic fashion between 1998 and 2017 and all relevant health technology assessments, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-controlled studies and case series were sought. Any benefits or otherwise of IWS over screw caddies were then evaluated in the areas of safety, effectiveness and economics. RESULTS: Two level III-3 papers suggested the use of caddies at least as safe as individual screws. Four level III-2 papers demonstrated that screws from caddies were as effective as individual alternatives, while a level III-3 paper reported that individual screws were significantly more expensive than screw caddies. Cost increases to our regional health service from ankle open reduction and internal fixations alone of at least $50,112 (AUD) per annum were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: From the results obtained, the authors recommend the continued use of screw caddies for orthopaedic procedures.

Current variability in the assessment of component position for the unhappy knee replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has a success rate of 80-90%, but despite this encouraging figure a painful TKA can be a source of dismay for patients and surgeons. Computed tomography (CT) scan has been developed as a tool to collect data in the analysis of TKA component placement. Protocols used to collect such data exist in orthopaedic and radiology practice with little standardization and significant variation. The aim of this review article was to evaluate such variability by sampling a series of protocols from a range of different radiology practices within NSW, Australia in a case-based manner and to then compare them against any literature standards. METHODS: The literature was surveyed for existing CT scan protocols used in TKA assessment. These were then compared with a series of metropolitan and rural radiology firms across the public and private sectors in NSW, Australia. RESULTS: Considerable variability exists between current protocols across NSW, Australia, which differ with proposed literature standards. CONCLUSION: Variabilities encountered when comparing the different scanning protocols in use for the assessment of TKA constitute a large potential source of error in the analysis of TKA component positioning. The reliance surgeons place on such analyses suggests the need for an established scanning protocol with an incorporated grading system and standardized values to allow reproducible data to help assess and predict TKA function.