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.

A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: RE-INTERPRETATION OF KNEE JOINT REGISTRY DATA

Abstract: National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS < 20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores. Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.

Diagnosing Fracture-Related Infection: Current Concepts and Recommendations.

Abstract: Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a severe complication after bone injury and can pose a serious diagnostic challenge. Overall, there is a limited amount of scientific evidence regarding diagnostic criteria for FRI. For this reason, the AO Foundation and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society proposed a consensus definition for FRI to standardize the diagnostic criteria and improve the quality of patient care and applicability of future studies regarding this condition. The aim of this article was to summarize the available evidence and provide recommendations for the diagnosis of FRI. For this purpose, the FRI consensus definition will be discussed together with a proposal for an update based on the available evidence relating to the diagnostic value of clinical parameters, serum inflammatory markers, imaging modalities, tissue and sonication fluid sampling, molecular biology techniques, and histopathological examination. Second, recommendations on microbiology specimen sampling and laboratory operating procedures relevant to FRI will be provided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Diagnostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT): is it safe for selected patients to self-administer at home? A retrospective analysis of a large cohort over 13 years

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Provision of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is an evolving field, facilitating discharge from hospital for selected patients with serious infections. We report on a large OPAT cohort focusing on the practice of supervised parenteral antibiotic administration in the community by patients and relatives, which we collectively term 'self-administration'. To distinguish between healthcare professional OPAT and self-administered OPAT, we have coined the terms H-OPAT and S-OPAT, respectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed data on 2059 OPAT episodes collected prospectively over a 13 year time period from 1993 to 2005. RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis, microbiology and antibiotics in this OPAT series are comparable to those previously reported. We identified no excess complications or hospital re-admissions in the S-OPAT group compared with the H-OPAT group. CONCLUSIONS: Self-administration of intravenous antimicrobial therapy, in selected patients under the supervision of a specialist team, is a safe and feasible strategy.

Optimal acetabular orientation for hip resurfacing

Abstract: Pseudotumours are a rare complication of hip resurfacing. They are thought to be a response to metal debris which may be caused by edge loading due to poor orientation of the acetabular component. Our aim was to determine the optimal acetabular orientation to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation. We matched 31 hip resurfacings revised for pseudotumour formation with 58 controls who had a satisfactory outcome from this procedure. The radiographic inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular component were measured on anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis using Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse software. The mean inclination angle (47 degrees, 10 degrees to 81 degrees) and anteversion angle (14 degrees, 4 degrees to 34 degrees) of the pseudotumour cases were the same (p = 0.8, p = 0.2) as the controls, 46 degrees (29 degrees to 60 degrees) and 16 degrees (4 degrees to 30 degrees) respectively, but the variation was greater. Assuming an accuracy of implantation of +/- 10 degrees about a target position, the optimal radiographic position was found to be approximately 45 degrees of inclination and 20 degrees of anteversion. The incidence of pseudotumours inside the zone was four times lower (p = 0.007) than outside the zone. In order to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation we recommend that surgeons implant the acetabular component at an inclination of 45 degrees (+/- 10) and anteversion of 20 degrees (+/- 10) on post-operative radiographs. Because of differences between the radiographic and the operative angles, this may be best achieved by aiming for an inclination of 40 degrees and an anteversion of 25 degrees.