Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre

About: Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre is a healthcare organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Arthroplasty. The organization has 2082 authors who have published 2920 publications receiving 145718 citations.

Bisphosphonates and bone quality.

Abstract: Bisphosphonates (BPs) are bone-avid compounds used as first-line medications for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. They are also used in other skeletal pathologies such as Paget's and metastatic bone disease. They effectively reduce osteoclast viability and also activity in the resorptive phase of bone remodelling and help preserve bone micro-architecture, both major determinants of bone strength and ultimately of the susceptibility to fractures. The chemically distinctive structure of each BP used in the clinic determines their unique affinity, distribution/penetration throughout the bone and their individual effects on bone geometry, micro-architecture and composition or what we call ‘bone quality'. BPs have no clinically significant anabolic effects. This review will touch upon some of the components of bone quality that could be affected by the administration of BPs.

The influence of hip rotation on femoral offset in plain radiographs.

Abstract: Background and purpose — Adequate restoration of femoral offset (FO) is critical for successful outcome after hip arthroplasty or fixation of hip fracture. Previous studies have identified that hip rotation influences the projected femoral offset (FOP) on plain anteroposterior (AP) radiographs, but the precise effect of rotation is unknown. Patients and methods — We developed a novel method of assessing rotation-corrected femoral offset (FORC), tested its clinical application in 222 AP hip radiographs following proximal femoral nailing, and validated it in 25 cases with corresponding computed tomography (CT) scans. Results — The mean FORC was 57 (29–93) mm, which differed significantly (p < 0.001) from the mean FOP 49 (22–65) mm and from the mean femoral offset determined by the standard method: 49 (23–66) mm. FORC correlated closely with femoral offset assessed by CT (FOCT); the Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88–0.97). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the assessment of FOR...

Divided by a lack of common language? - a qualitative study exploring the use of language by health professionals treating back pain

Abstract: The importance of using a common language when communicating to others about back pain is acknowledged in the literature. There are broadly three areas where difficulties in communication about back pain arise. Firstly, patients seeking information from health care professionals can experience difficulties understanding them and the medical literature; secondly, misunderstandings among health professionals concerning terminology can arise. Thirdly, the lack of standardised definitions for back pain terms can make comparison of research studies problematic. This study aims to explore the meanings and issues surrounding the use of existing medical terms for back pain from the perspective of health care professionals, lay people who have consulted health care practitioners for back pain and lay people who have not seen a health care professional regarding back pain. A series of focus groups were used to explore participants' understanding. A purposive sampling approach was used to achieve a sample which included general practitioners, chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, and lay people. Focus groups were facilitated by an independent professional qualitative researcher. They were audio taped and full transcripts of each focus group underwent line by line analysis, identifying concepts and coded. Constant comparison was used to allow each item to be checked or compared against the rest of the data Lay participants understood the majority of the terms explored in the group differently to the health professionals. The terms, as understood by the lay participants, can be split into three broad categories. Firstly, terms which were not understood or were misconstrued and which had inadvertent negative connotations or implications. Secondly, terms which were not understood or were misconstrued, but without this leading to negative emotional responses. Thirdly, terms which were understood by lay participants as the health professionals stated they intended them to be understood. Few of the existing medical terms were understood and accepted by lay participants in the way discussed and expected by health professionals. Misunderstandings, unintended meanings and negative emotional responses to terms were common within the study focus groups.