Fresh-frozen vs irradiated allograft bone in orthopaedic reconstructive surgery

The use of allograft bone is increasingly common in orthopaedic reconstruction procedures. The optimal method of preparation of allograft bone is subject of great debate. Proponents of fresh-frozen graft cite improved biological and biomechanical characteristics relative to irradiated material, whereas fear of bacterial or viral transmission warrants some to favour irradiated graft. Careful review of the literature is necessary to appreciate the influence of processing techniques on bone quality. Whereas limited clinical trials are available to govern the selection of appropriate bone graft, this review presents the argument favouring the use of fresh-frozen bone allograft as compared to irradiated bone.

Perioperative mortality after hemiarthroplasty related to fixation method : a study based on the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Background and purpose: The appropriate fixation method for hemiarthroplasty of the hip as it relates to implant survivorship and patient mortality is a matter of ongoing debate. We examined the influence of fixation method on revision rate and mortality.----- ----- Methods: We analyzed approximately 25,000 hemiarthroplasty cases from the AOA National Joint Replacement Registry. Deaths at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year were compared for all patients and among subgroups based on implant type.----- ----- Results: Patients treated with cemented monoblock hemiarthroplasty had a 1.7-times higher day-1 mortality compared to uncemented monoblock components (p < 0.001). This finding was reversed by 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year after surgery (p < 0.001). Modular hemiarthroplasties did not reveal a difference in mortality between fixation methods at any time point.----- ----- Interpretation: This study shows lower (or similar) overall mortality with cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip.

Studies on bending limitations for the optimal fit of orthopaedic bone plates

Distal tibial fractures are now commonly treated via intermedullary plate fixation due to higher rates of union and lower rates of postoperative complications. However, patient specific bone morphology demands manual deformation of the plate to ensure appropriate fit along the bone Distal tibial fractures are now commonly treated via intermedullary plate fixation due to higher rates of union and lower rates of postoperative complications. However, patient specific bone morphology demands manual deformation of the plate to ensure appropriate fit along the bone contours, and depending on the material of the plate, different outcomes have been reported along with postoperative complications. A comparative analysis of Stainless Steel 316L and Ti-6Al-4V alloys was carried to estimate the safe bending limit for appropriate fits. The results from the ANSYS FEA simulations were validated with experiments based on ASTM F382-99. It is found that SS316L is better suited for large deformations (up to 16˚ in proximal tip and 7.5˚ in distal end) and Ti for smaller deformation contours (up to 3˚ in proximal tip and 1.8˚ in distal end). The results of this study have profound implications for the choice of plates based on preliminary radiographical fracture examinations to ensure better fixation and higher rates of union of distal tibial fractures.

Exeter short stems compared with standard length Exeter stems : experience from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

The standard Exeter stem has a length of 150mm with offsets 37.5mm to 56mm. Shorter stems of lengths 95mm, 115mm and 125mm with offsets 35.5mm or less are available for patients with smaller femurs. Concern has been raised regarding the behaviour of the smaller implants. This paper analysed data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry comparing survivorship of stems of offset 35.5mm or less with the standard stems of 37.5mm offset or greater. At seven years there was no significant difference in the Cumulative Percent Revision Rate in the short stems (3.4%, 95% CI 2.4-4.8%) compared with the standard length stems (3.5%, 95% CI 3.3-3.8%) despite its use in a greater proportion of potentially more difficult developmental dysplasia of the hip cases.

Evaluation framework to assess orthopaedic procedures

Introduction & aims The demand for evidence of efficacy of treatments in general and orthopaedic surgical procedures in particular is ever increasing in Australia and worldwide. The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework recently implemented in Australia to determine the efficacy of bone-anchored prostheses. Method The proposed evaluation framework to determine the benefit and harms of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with limb loss was extracted from a systematic review of the literature including seminal studies focusing on clinical benefits and safety of procedures involving screw-type implant (e.g., OPRA) and press-fit fixations (e.g., EEFT, ILP, OPL). [1-64] Results The literature review highlighted that a standard and replicable evaluation framework should focus on: • The clinical benefits with a systematic recording of health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-26, Q-TFA), mobility predictor (e.g., AMPRO), ambulation abilities (e.g., TUG, 6MWT), walking abilities (e.g., characteristic spatio-temporal) and actual activity level at baseline and follow-up post Stage 2 surgery, • The potential harms with systematic recording of residuum care, infection, implant stability, implant integrity, injuries (e.g., falls) after Stage 1 surgery. There was a general consensus around the instruments to monitor most of the benefits and harms. The benefits could be assessed using a wide spectrum of complementary assessments ranging from subjective patient self-reporting to objective measurements of physical activity. However, this latter was assessed using a broad range of measurements (e.g., pedometer, load cell, energy consumption). More importantly, the lack of consistent grading of infections was sufficiently noticeable to impede cross-fixation comparisons. Clearly, a more universal grading system is needed. Conclusions Investigators are encouraged to implement an evaluation framework featuring the domains and instruments proposed above using a single database to facilitate robust prospective studies about potential benefits and harms of their procedure. This work is also a milestone in the development of national and international clinical outcome registries.

Patients' expectations and actual use of custom-made orthopaedic shoes

Objective: To investigate the association between patients' expectations and the actual use of custom-made orthopaedic shoes. Design: A prospective cohort study with internal comparison. Setting: Twelve orthopaedic shoe companies. Patients: During six months, consecutive patients who were provided with their first ever pair of orthopaedic shoes and aged 16 years or older were recruited. A total of 339 patients with different pathologies were included (response 67%). Mean (SD) age of the patients was 63 (15) years, and 129 patients (38%) were male. Main measures: A practical and reproducible questionnaire, measuring: frequency of use of orthopaedic shoes, patients' expectations and experiences of aspects of the usability of orthopaedic shoes, and communication about patients' expectations. Results: Patients' expectations were not associated with the use of orthopaedic shoes (P-values range: 0.106 to 0.607), but the difference between expectations and experiences was (P-values range: <0.001 to 0.012). The expectations of patients who frequently used their orthopaedic shoes were in concordance with their experiences, whereas the expectations of patients who did not use their orthopaedic shoes were much higher than their experiences. There was no communication of patients' expectations with the medical specialist or orthopaedic shoe technician in 34% and 25% of the patients respectively. Conclusions: In relation to the actual use of orthopaedic shoes, it is crucial that patients' expectations are not much higher than their experiences.

Development and reproducibility of a short questionnaire to measure use and usability of custom-made orthopaedic shoes

OBJECTIVE To develop a short and easy to use questionnaire to measure use and usability of custom-made orthopaedic shoes, and to investigate its reproducibility. DESIGN Development of the questionnaire (Monitor Orthopaedic Shoes) was based on a literature search, expert interviews, 2 expert meetings, and exploration and testing of reproducibility. The questionnaire comprises 2 parts: a pre part, measuring expectations; and a post part, measuring experiences. Patients The pre part of the final version was completed twice by 37 first-time users before delivery of their orthopaedic shoes. The post part of the final version was completed twice by 39 first-time users who had worn their orthopaedic shoes for 2–4 months. RESULTS High reproducibility scores (Cohen’s kappa > 0.60 or intra class correlation > 0.70) were found in all but one question of both parts of the final version of the Monitor Orthopaedic Shoes questionnaire. The smallest real difference on a visual analogue scale (100 mm) ranged from 21 to 50 mm. It took patients approximately 15 minutes to complete one part. CONCLUSION Monitor Orthopaedic Shoes is a practical and reproducible questionnaire that can measure relevant aspects of use and usability of orthopaedic shoes from a patient’s perspective.

What influences a patients decision to use custom-made orthopaedic shoes?

Background Despite potential benefits, some patients decide not to use their custom-made orthopaedic shoes (OS). Factors are known in the domains ‘usability’, ‘communication and service’, and ‘opinion of others’ that influence a patient’s decision to use OS. However, the interplay between these factors has never been investigated. The aim of this study was to explore the interplay between factors concerning OS, and the influences thereof on a patient’s decision to use OS. Methods A mixed-methods design was used, combining qualitative and quantitative data by means of sequential data analysis and triangulation. Priority was given to the qualitative part. Qualitative data was gathered with a semi-structured interview covering the three domains. Data was analysed using the framework approach. Quantitative data concerned the interplay between factors and determining a rank-order for the importance of factors of ‘usability’. Results A patient’s decision to use OS was influenced by various factors indicated as being important and by acceptance of their OS. Factors of ‘usability’ were more important than factors of ‘communication’; the ‘opinion of others’ was of limited importance. An improvement of walking was indicated as the most important factor of ‘usability’. The importance of other factors (cosmetic appearance and ease of use) was determined by reaching a compromise between these factors and an improvement of walking. Conclusions A patient’s decision to use OS is influenced by various factors indicated as being important and by acceptance of their OS. An improvement of walking is the most important factor of ‘usability’, the importance of other factors (cosmetic appearance and ease of use) is determined by reaching compromises between these factors and an improvement of walking. Communication is essential to gain insight in a patient’s acceptance and in the compromises they are willing to reach. This makes communication the key for clinicians to influence a patient’s decision to use OS.