Thursday, June 25, 2009

Case Study - Femoral Neck Fracture in a 79-Year-Old Woman

History

A 79-year-old woman presents to the emergency department (ED) with a chief complaint of a 3-day history of right hip pain. She only mildly twisted her right leg 3 days ago; she has since had increasing pain and difficulty walking. The pain is sharp and radiates down to her right knee. It is mild when she is at rest, but it becomes severe when she attempts to walk. She has not had any weakness or numbness. She denies having any fevers. She has not had any direct trauma to the hip or falls, and there has not been any notable swelling of the leg or skin changes/rash. The review of systems also reveals that she has unintentionally lost 8.8 lb (4.0 kg) over the last 6 months. She denies having any nausea, vomiting, night sweats, cough, or shortness of breath. She has a history of multiple rib fractures that resulted from vigorous coughing 2 years ago; at that time, she was diagnosed only with osteoporosis as the cause of these fractures. She denies having any previous fractures otherwise. Her past medical history also includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although she has never been a smoker. She also has known osteoarthritis of the hips, scoliosis of the thoracic spine, and a presumptive diagnosis of Paget disease on the basis of a single elevated serum alkaline phosphatase. Her medications include budesonide/eformoterol and terbutaline inhalers, oral calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weekly alendronate. A bisphosphonate was started after dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) showed a T score of -2, which is consistent with osteopenia. Both her mother and sister had broken their hips later in their lives. She lives independently and is still driving. She denies experiencing physical abuse, and there are several family members accompanying her in the ED who show concern for her.

On physical examination, the patient appears well and is lying comfortably in bed. Her heart rate is 84 bpm and regular, with a blood pressure of 140/80 mm Hg. Her temperature is normal at 98.9°F (37.2°C), and her respiratory rate is 14 breaths/min. Her cardiovascular, respiratory, and abdominal examinations are all normal. She has moderate pain with any movement of the right leg and has groin tenderness on palpation. The right leg is shortened and externally rotated. Her peripheral pulses are palpable, and she has normal distal strength and sensation in the right lower extremity.

Her blood tests reveal a normal complete blood cell (CBC) count; however, her electrolytes show a significantly depleted phosphate concentration of 0.9 mg/dL (0.29 mmol/L; normal range, 3-4.5 mg/dL). Additional laboratory results include a creatinine of 0.68 mg/dL (60 μmol/L; normal range, <1.5>

What is the underlying disorder that resulted in the patient's pathologic hip fracture?

Hint: The serum phosphate is low, but the serum calcium is preserved.
Vitamin D deficiency
Oncogenic osteomalacia
Fanconi syndrome
Secondary hyperparathyroidism


Investigation

A chest radiograph reveals multiple healed rib fractures.

Radiographs of the pelvis and right hip are obtained as well, which reveal a right femoral neck fracture.


The pelvic radiograph clearly demonstrated osteomalacia. The patient was admitted to the hospital for open reduction and internal fixation of her fractured right femoral neck. Evaluation of her left femoral neck revealed suspicion of a pseudofracture, which was also fixed. Of note were the multiple (pseudo) fractures in the pubic rami and pelvic ring.


The lowered serum phosphate was the primary clue to the underlying cause. No previous serum phosphate measurements were available for comparison. In order to determine the etiology of the hypophosphatemia, a urinary phosphate measurement must be obtained. This is best done with patient fasting, and it may be done with a single specimen. In this patient, the urinary calcium-to-creatinine ratio was normal at 0.4, and the urinary phosphate-to-creatinine ratio was elevated at 5.4. A calculation of tubular reabsorption of phosphate showed a low value of 0.325 (normal, 0.82-0.95), confirming renal phosphate wasting. A number of causes for increased urinary phosphate excretion had to be considered. Primary and secondary hyperparathyroidism were essentially excluded by the normal serum calcium and creatinine levels. Vitamin D deficiency or resistance was excluded by an adequate serum vitamin D level. Fanconi syndrome was excluded by the negative myeloma screen, normal uric acid level, and absence of glucosuria. Hereditary hypophosphatemic rickets (X-linked, autosomal dominant, or recessive) was highly unlikely because of the patient's advanced age. The serum and urine studies were, however, consistent with a diagnosis of oncogenic (or tumor-induced) osteomalacia. This acquired renal phosphate wasting syndrome of oncogenic or tumor-induced osteomalacia is now known to be caused by raised serum fibroblast growth factor (FGF)–23. The pathognomonic signs of this condition include adult-onset osteomalacia with low serum phosphate, normal serum calcium, and renal phosphate wasting. Calcitriol levels are low as a result of the weak inhibitory effect of FGF-23 on the renal 1 alpha-hydroxylase enzyme; however, they need not be measured to secure the diagnosis. The serum parathyroid hormone was mildly elevated as a result of the mild decrease in active vitamin D. The mechanism for bone loss is incompletely understood; it is partly caused by the disturbed phosphate metabolism and, to a lesser degree, the abnormal vitamin D metabolism.

The exact epidemiology of this condition is unknown. It is certainly rare, by 1999, only approximately 100 cases had been reported in the literature.[1] On the basis of the description of these cases, the clinical presentation appears to be wide and ranges from musculoskeletal pain, proximal muscle weakness, and bony tenderness to frank osteomalacia and pathologic fractures. It is vital to check the serum phosphate level in any patient with unexplained musculoskeletal symptoms and/or pathologic fractures. Confirmation of the diagnosis can be made with a serum FGF-23 measurement.

FGF-23 is a phosphatonin secreted autonomously from tumor cells in oncogenic osteomalacia. FGF-23 inhibits the sodium-phosphate cotransporter in the renal tubules, such that less phosphate is reabsorbed, resulting in urinary phosphate wasting. Of the phosphate that the kidneys filter each day, 85% to 90% of it is reabsorbed by the sodium-phosphate cotransporters in the renal tubules. Autosomal dominant hypophosphatemic rickets is caused by mutations in the FGF-23 gene, located on chromosome 12p13. Part of the metabolism of FGF-23 is degradation by PHEX, a membrane-bound endopeptidase; however, uncontrolled secretion of FGF-23 by certain tumor cells saturates the PHEX degradation capability, which allows FGF-23 action to be unlimited. Serum levels of FGF-23 are almost universally elevated in this condition, and they can be monitored after treatment for identification of disease recurrence.[2] Other putative phosphatonins are the topic of active research.

The vast majority of the causative tumors are small, benign, and themselves asymptomatic,[3][3] If STIR MRI is unhelpful, an octreotide scan can be performed for localization of the tumor.

T2-weighted short-tau inversion-recovery (STIR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended as the first step in locating the tissues. Any abnormal areas should be scanned in more detail to find the causative tumor. Once identified, the tumor must be removed. The serum FGF-23 level and serum phosphate concentration should normalize postoperatively. If not normalized, further exploration for the causative tumor is indicated. The histology usually reveals a phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor (mixed connective tissue variant) or a hemangiopericytoma. In the majority of cases, the nuclear grade is said to be low. Mitotic activity is usually low or absent, and the cellularity is also low. Although most cases appear relatively well-circumscribed on low-power magnification, even the benign tumors may infiltrate the surrounding connective tissues. The finding of osteoid-type tissue within the tumor is common in both soft-tissue and bone samples. The matrix may be noted to be highly calcified, which correlates with the finding of numerous osteoclast-like giant cells. More than 50% of the soft-tissue samples show a partial shell of woven bone. In one series only 3 samples (less than 10%) fit the criteria for being labeled "malignant," indicating that this is a relatively rare event. As such, this condition is rarely fatal, and morbidity can be avoided by timely diagnosis and tumor removal.

This patient was treated with an oral high-dose phosphate supplement to normalize her serum phosphate before her operation. She then had an open reduction and internal rotation performed, with an uncomplicated postoperative course. She successfully completed a course of inpatient rehabilitation and was discharged to home without incident. Her preoperative serum FGF-23 was measured and found to be elevated at 355 U/mL (normal range, 3-45 U/mL). A STIR MRI image indicated an area of abnormality in her left ethmoid sinus. A computed tomography (CT) scan of her sinuses revealed a mass lesion in the left posterior ethmoid sinus obstructing the left sphenoidal sinus, with no sign of bony destruction. Review of the literature revealed that sinus tumors cause 5-10% of cases of oncogenic osteomalacia.[3] This patient proceeded to undergo an uneventful resection of this tumor, which was a mesenchymal hemangiopericytoma of the phosphaturic type. She made a full clinical recovery with normalization of her serum phosphate levels postoperatively; serum FGF-23 did not need to be measured provided that the phosphate levels remain normal. In the event that they remain low, then the FGF-23 should be rechecked, and if this is persistently elevated a further search for the causative tumor should be made. DXA was not repeated because the diagnosis of osteomalacia made this redundant.


Questions

If a patient presented with one of the following biochemical abnormalities, which set of findings would be most likely to lead to a suspicion of oncogenic osteomalacia?
Raised serum phosphate, lowered urinary phosphate-to-creatinine ratio, normal serum calcium
Low serum phosphate, low serum calcium, raised urinary phosphate-to-creatinine ratio
Low serum phosphate, raised serum alkaline phosphatase, low serum calcium
Low serum phosphate, raised urinary phosphate-to-creatinine ratio, normal serum calcium
None of the above


You diagnose the patient you are examining with osteomalacia and suspect that the disease may be oncogenic in nature. Which of the following methods is considered the best for finding the tumor responsible for oncogenic osteomalacia?
Full skeletal survey by x-ray
Computed tomography (CT) of the fractured bone
Octreotide scan
T2-weighted short-tau inversion-recovery (STIR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
T1-weighted STIR MRI

Answer first before you scroll down.





















Answer:

Not all patients will have radiologic evidence of osteomalacia at onset; therefore, a full skeletal survey is not helpful and exposes the patient to too high a level of radiation. The tumors are usually benign and often small. STIR MRI T2-weighted imaging is the most helpful study; further dedicated imaging for any areas of abnormality detected on this scan should be performed. Octreotide scanning is generally considered the second best imaging study.



References

  1. Drezner MK. Chapter 65, Table 1. In: Favus MJ, ed. Primer on the Metabolic Bone Diseases and Disorders of Mineral Metabolism. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;1999:331-7.
  2. Jonsson KB, Zahradnik R, Larsson T, et al. Fibroblast growth factor 23 in oncogenic osteomalacia and X-linked hypophosphatemia. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1656-63.
  3. Folpe AL, Fanburg-Smith JC, Billings SD, et al. Most osteomalacia-associated mesenchymal tumors are a single histopathologic entity. An analysis of 32 cases and a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1-30.
Source: http://cme.medscape.com

Oxidized Zirconium Bearing Surfaces


The Way Forward In Hip Arthroplasty?


Author:
S. Chatterjee MBBS MRCS MSc
With a contribution from F.Haddad BSc MCh (Orth) FRCS (Orth)

What Is Oxidized Zirconium?

Oxidized zirconium (Oxinium™ - Smith & Nephew) is a product of new hybrid technology which seeks to combine the properties of metals and ceramics into a single substance. Specifically, it is an oxidized zirconium surface layer on underlying zirconium metal. The underlying base metal is a zirconium-niobium alloy and the surface layer is oxidized zirconium (aka zirconia) which is one of the common ceramic bearing surfaces used in orthopaedics. However what is unusual about this hybrid technology is that unlike previous attempts to combine material properties such as hydroxyapatite on stainless steel femoral stems, this oxidized zirconium is not an applied coating to the underlying zirconium metal but rather a change is the structure of the zirconium itself at its surface. A typical component is first forged or machined from a wrought alloy of zirconium (97.5%) and niobium (2.5%). The component is then heated in air at about 500°C for about 3 hours. This process is known as thermal diffusion and the subsequent oxidation of the alloy results in the zirconia surface layer. The layer of zirconia formed upon the metal alloy is about 5µm thick. The hardness (resistance to deformity) of the zirconia is about 14-15 GPa. This is in contrast to the hardness of the underlying alloy which is about 3 GPa.

Do we need it?

To answer this question, we require a brief review of the currently available bearing materials for lower limb joint arthroplasty and their shortcomings. 1) Metal on Polyethylene Bearings
These bearings, heavily popularised in the 80’s and 90’s, continue to perform well particularly after the introduction of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. However the demographics of the population has changed since. With the increasing demand for arthroplasty in younger patients the wear characteristics of this coupling may not provide the best answer. The problem lies with the polyethylene. Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) although superior to standard polyethylene, suffered from its sterilisation methods. Sterilisation with radiation can cause breakage of chains and is even worse if done in air. Alternative sterilisation methods with ethylene oxide or sterilisation in an inert gas all proved to be detrimental in terms of decreasing the cross links within the polyethylene. The emergence of highly crossed linked polyethylene (HCLPE) is a significant improvement upon UHMWPE(5). Radiostereometric analysis of HCLPE suggests after 30 million cycles, there is much less wear (30-70%) than with UHMWPE. However even with the improved material characteristics, it is debatable as to whether acetabular components of reduced thickness, to allow larger femoral heads, will have the sufficient toughness required. This area is still rapidly developing with even newer forms of polyethylene in the making. 2) Ceramic on Ceramic
Their main advantages are their hardness and resistance to surface scratching and pitting. They are also biologically very well tolerated and excite little tissue reaction. However it is their brittleness and risk of catastrophic failure which remains a concern. The quality of ceramic manufacture has improved dramatically with a reduction in grain size leading to a more uniform structure but nevertheless with repetitive impact and point loading situations such as impingement, the coupling is not very forgiving. Ceramics generate far less wear particles in comparison with polyethylene but any wear particles produced can lead to third body wear production, and a brittle fracture is a catastrophe which greatly complicates a revision situation. Thus it is their fracture toughness which remains a concern. Squeaking of the joint, although a well discussed complication, is uncommon but is a result of a breakdown in fluid film lubrication resulting in pistoning motions between the ball and the liner. These pistoning movements may also play a part in the development of stripe wear which is seen within the cup where the ball repeatedly pistons over the same area during the gait cycle. 3) Ceramic on Polyethylene
The results of zirconia on polyethylene are well documented as a poor coupling2 on account of the zirconia changing its crystalline structure to less wear resistant form during manufacture. This was countered by adding yttrium oxide to stabilise the structure. But despite this addition there is little data to substantiate the theoretical reduction in wear particles generated with ceramic on polyethylene as compared with metal on polyethylene. The same is not true of alumina on polyethylene bearings. However although data for the alumina on polyethylene bearings is much better than for zirconia3, there does not seem to be widespread interest in these bearings. Some surgeons maintain that there is insufficient data at the moment to determine its superiority over other bearings. 4) Metal on Metal
There has been a recent resurgence of interest in these couplings following the improvement in metallurgy and manufacture techniques. Cobalt chromium alloys now have smaller grain sizes with improved hardness and wear characteristics. This means that acetabular components can be made with a smaller surface thickness without sacrificing toughness and being over susceptible to wear. This allows surgeons to use larger femoral heads which lends to increased stability of the arthroplasty. This also allows the manufacture of large yet thin diameter sockets which can accommodate the femoral shell as used in hip resurfacing techniques. Although the number of wear particles produced in these bearings are high in number because the size of the particles is in the 0.015-0.12µm range they tend to produce a lesser reaction than polyethylene wear particles which are in the 0.2-7µm range. There are several concerns with this type of bearing. One is the uncertain implications of metal ion accumulation. Whilst it is well documented that there are increased metal ion levels in the serum, spleen and kidney there are only postulations of a cancer or other health risk. There is also the phenomenon of ALVAL (aseptic, lymphocytic vasculitis and associated lesions) which results from exposure to metal ions. Whilst still being extensively researched it appears to be a type IV cell mediated hypersensitivity reaction with vascular endothelial swelling which can result in massive soft tissue destruction sometimes with surprisingly little in terms of external symptoms. Why this occurs precisely and to whom is not yet well characterised. Interestingly though results so far indicate that perimenopausal women fare considerably worse in comparison to men with metal on metal articulations. Women who have received metal on metal arthroplasties have roughly twice the failure rate as compared with men.

What are the advantages of oxidized zirconium over conventional bearings?

i) In vitro testing
The results from Smith & Nephew’s in vitro testing are impressive(4). In an abrasion test with a cement pin against separate discs of cobalt chrome and oxidized zirconium, after 10 million cycles, the wear tracks were more shallow, the volumetric wear 4,900 times less and the surface was 160 times smoother in the oxidized zirconium. With respect to hardness, the ceramic surface was about 15GPa reducing to about 3GPa with the underlying zirconium-niobium alloy. This compares favourably with cobalt chrome which has a hardness of about 5GPa. Oxide adhesion tests showed that even after creating a defect in the ceramic surface layer down to the zirconium and undergoing 10 million cycles of rubbing with cement pins, there was no evidence of ceramic delamination or additional damage and catastrophic failure did not result. Fatigue strength testing showed an equivalent profile to cobalt chrome. In adhesive wear tests, compared to cobalt chrome, oxidized zirconium has a lower coefficient of friction and therefore less wear against both UHMWPE and cartilage. ii) Hip Arthroplasty
The oxidized zirconium ball has a lower generation of wear particles with UHMWPE in comparison with stainless steel and cobalt chromium heads. This reduction is even greater with HCLPE and this particular coupling has the lowest wear rate of any articulation. The ball is also more resistant to scratching than cobalt chrome heads and has a lower surface roughness than cobalt chrome. The problems of brittle fracture, squeaking and stripe wear seen with pure ceramics are not a feature of oxidized zirconium. It therefore seems to have similar tribology to a ceramic, but without its disadvantages, combining high wear resistance and high toughness. It should be mentioned that Smith and Nephew have a wide range of head and liner options to partner every cup compared with ceramic implants. This allows more accurate restoration of the offset and leg length. iii) Nickel Hypersensitivity
Oxidized zirconium can be used in patients exhibiting nickel sensitivity safely as there is no traceable nickel in this material.

What concerns have been raised?

Theoretically, there are several concerns with this relatively new material. i) Could the surface layer delaminate?
The abrupt difference in material hardness (15GPa to 3GPa) could lead to delamination of the surface layer due to build up of internal stresses at the transitional area. Should this occur then the tribologic result could be a large amount of metallic wear. But the in vitro data as mentioned above suggests that it does not occur but we await in vivo data to confirm this. ii) Are the reduced levels of the wear particles generated clinically significant?
A standard cobalt chrome femoral component for hip with UHMWPE produces around 38mm3/106 cycles. Although it is agreed that the wear particles generated by oxinium heads with UHMWPE in hip arthroplasty (21mm3/106 cycles)are less than with cobalt chrome, an even greater reduction in particle wear numbers (undetectable) could be achieved with HCLPE and either a cobalt chrome or oxidized zirconium head(5). Thus it is suggested the new oxinium technology may not be the only option.However, more critical analysis of these results indicate that roughening of the cobalt chrome head significantly increases the wear particles generated accelerating polyethylene wear. So the superior resistance to roughening of oxidized zirconium may yet improve the longevity of the implant in vivo. iii) Is there any clinical in vivo data?
No rigorous clinical trials are yet published but Mr Fares Haddad (Consultant Hip Surgeon at University College Hospital, London) has this comment about some preliminary clincal data he has available. “There is currently a multi centre study ongoing in the United Kingdom which has recruited almost 400 patients. In that study Oxidized Zirconium and Cobalt chrome have been matched with standard polyethylene and highly crosslinked polyethylene to compare respective wear rates with 32mm heads. The preliminary data is very promising with almost no wear in the Oxidized zirconium on XLPE articulation. Our studies thus far where Oxidized zirconium heads have been implanted in the first stage of two stage revisions and in revisions that have subsequently failed / retrievals would suggest that there is very little head damage and even were there have been dislocations the head damage is out of the standard bearing area of the hip and has not led to significant polyethylene damage or wear. The explanted heads have been put through simulators and still show excellent wear properties.”

Conclusions

Oxidized zirconium is a new and elegant technology. In my opinion it does offer mechanical advantages over other bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty in the objective of reducing wear and thus is an important step forward. However as always technology is on the move and concurrent developments in polyethylene technology and acetabular buffers are equally exciting. As always the proof in all new technologies are in the clincal trials and we await the full data from the trials to become available but certainly initial impressions are promising.

References

  1. A novel method of cross-linking ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. Muratoglu O.K., Bragdon C.R., O’Connor D.O., Jasty M., Harris W.H. Journal of Arthroplasty, 2001, 16, p. 149.
  2. Poor eight-year survival of cemented zirconia-polyethylene total hip replacements. J. Allain, S. Le Mouel, D. Goutallier, M. C. Voisin J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1999;81-B:835-42.
  3. Ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Seventeen to twenty-one-year results. Urban JA, Garvin KL, Boese CK, Bryson L, Pedersen DR, Callaghan JJ, Miller RK. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Nov;83-A(11):1688-94
  4. Smith & Nephew Website: www.oxinium.co.uk – downloaded August 21/8/08
  5. Reduced wear with oxidized zirconium femoral heads. Victoria Good, Michael Ries, Robert L. Barrack, Kirstin Widding, Gordon Hunter and Dan Heuer. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – Supplement 4, 2003, 85A, p. 105.
Absolutely no contributions or assistance have been sought or provided from Smith & Nephew. This is an independent article with no conflicts of interest.

Power Tools In Orthopaedic Surgery - An Update


Author: Satish Kale

Introduction

Power tools form the backbone of modern orthopaedic surgical procedures. Power tools have undergone many improvisations and modifications in the past two decades and have improved tremendously in their functionality and versatility. Though a natural extension of ordinary orthopaedic armamentarium they have progressed to form the third arm and many a surgeon would be lost without these in their quiver. Orthopaedic cutting tools often receive little medical or even engineering attention beyond the considerations of size and shape. Medical power tools are unfortunately a replica of those used in the metal cutting industry and have evolved as “smaller powered version” of the same. The machining techniques and manufacturing technology deployed for these medical instrumentation are frequently modeled after the these industrial designs. This ‘off-the-shelf ‘ information is then applied to the requirements of a particular orthopaedic application, saving time and allowing more effort to be spent on improving implant performance.

Optimum characteristics of cutting tools

1. Exhaust pathway for bone shavings and metal debris
Shavings produced by a fluted face-cutting tool have a very difficult flow path. Following the action of the instrument they must make a right angle turn, then follow a long and narrow channel before clearing the tool. Additional torque and thrust that must be applied to maintain cutting action and to compensate for the power required to push the shavings outside the cavity. The heat produced as a by-product of this inefficiency can also cause thermal necrosis and delay bone healing. In contrast, a rotary plane has a short and direct flow path that doesn’t create the problems described above. Torque, thrust and heat are reduced as a result with lesser damage to biology. 2. Proper cutting edge geometry
Cutting edges intended for metal cutting must be very strong. The high tensile strength of metal requires a blunt angle at the cutting edge in order to resist the high forces generated during cutting. Since bone has a much lower tensile strength than typical metals, cutting edges intended for bone can have a much narrower angle and, as a result, will cut with less force and heat. 3. Sharp, burr-free cutting edges.
4. Metallurgy

The tools ability to retain a sharp cutting edge hinges on various factors. Hardness is only one parameter. The other is corrosion-resistance. A tool made from type 420 martensitic stainless steel hardened to Rc 52 holds an edge longer than a tool made from custom 455 precipitation hardening stainless steel at Rc 52. This is because the hardening mechanism for martensitic alloys produces very hard carbides that are dispersed throughout the material. Regardless of the alloy selected, cleaning and passivation should immediately follow finishing in order to maximize corrosion resistance.

What other characteristics should we look for in selecting power tools?

  • Power
  • Simplicity
  • Versatility
  • Customized Performance
  • Standardization
Core power tools in Orthopaedics are :
  • Drill Systems
  • Bone saws
  • Burrs
Common power accessories used are :
  • Power Pulse Lavage systems
  • Cast cutters

Drill Systems

Drill systems are classified and selected on the basis of use in small/large bone surgery and based on specific applications like orthopaedics, neurosurgery or maxillo-facial applications.
Various parameters considered are :
  • Speed : available from 10,000 – 95,000 rpm
  • Torque: Ideal is around 2.5 inches/oz.
  • Debris channeling troughs: rotary plane type
  • Size
  • Weight
  • Versatility and attachment combinations possible
  • Reversibility of directions for drilling
  • Heat profile
  • Duty cycle
  • Flexibility – Flexible or rigid
  • Design of the instrument – ergonomics
  • Throttled or throttle-less
  • Teeth configuration – diamond tooth, serrated etc.
  • Autoclavable options
  • Low or high profile

Saws

Various characteristics determine saw selection. They are:
  • Power Source: Pneumatic, Battery operated or Electric
  • Positions of blades possible
  • Compatibility with different selections of blades
  • Compatibility with other attachments
  • Throttled or throttle-less
  • Gear ratio – 5:1 is optimum
Various specifications available are:
Micro - sagittal saw: 0-25,000 cycles per minute (cpm)
  • Throttle controlled
  • 90-110 pounds per square inch (psi)
Micro- oscillating saw: 0-35,000 cpm
  • Throttle controlled
  • 90-110 psi
Micro- reciprocating saw: 0-22,000 cpm
  • Throttle controlled
  • 90-110 psi
Pneumatic extended oscillating saw: 0-35,000 cpm

Burrs

Burr functionality is determined by ball-tip design and configuration. Several designs are available depending on the procedure for which the burr may be required. Some configurations are:
  • Barrel Tip Carbide
  • Cross cut fissures
  • End/Side cut carbide
  • Lindemann Carbide
  • Round cutting carbide
  • Round diamonds
  • Round end carbide
  • Shannon 44, stainless
  • Burr selection depends on application whether orthopaedic, neurosurgical or maxillofacial.

Power Pulse Lavage System

What to look for?
  • A non-clogging design
  • Fracture resistant spray stem
  • Non-brittle suction tip
  • PVC-free construction
  • Ergonomically designed hand press
  • Non-kinking hose preferably polyurethane
  • Variable speed trigger
  • Suction pressure: not exceeding 100 psi.

Orthopaedic Cast Cutter

Requirements:
  • Balance between weight and power to reduce user fatigue
  • Ergonomically designed for the plaster room technicians for prolonged use
  • Low noise
  • Light weight
  • Multi-speed control

What are the risks to the orthopaedic surgeon from using power tools or vibrating machinery?

1. Risk from vibrating power tools:
According to studies by researchers Dr S Roberts , Mr G Ashcroft et al orthopaedic surgeons are a unique group within the medical profession using vibrating hand-held air and battery powered tools in the regular course of their work. The vibration transmitted to the hand and upper limb by prolonged operation of vibrating tools such as orthopaedic saws can result in the disease known as Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) in which individuals may complain of white finger, numbness or muscle and joint problems. The results of their study shown are an eye-opener. Orthopaedic surgeons showed a significant excess of upper limb neurological symptoms related to exposure to the use of battery and air powered tools and peripheral nerve abnormalities were identified in the test group. This study confirms the possibility that orthopaedic surgeons may be a group at risk of developing the neurological and musculoskeletal symptoms of HAVS 2. Risks from noise exposure in the orthopaedic operating theatre
Surgeons working in orthopaedic operating theatres are exposed to significant noise pollution due to the use of powered instruments. This may carry a risk of noise-induced hearing loss. A study by Hamish Love attempted to quantify this noise exposure and establish whether this breaches occupational health guidelines for workplace noise exposure. He concluded that the overall total noise dose during orthopaedic surgery was acceptable but orthopaedic surgeons experience brief periods of noise exposure in excess of legislated guidelines. This constitutes a noise hazard and carries a significant, but unquantified risk for noise-induced hearing loss. 3. Aerosol / Droplet Infection
Precautionary measures against contact with infectious aerosols and droplets have to be mandatory during use of high-speed orthopaedic power tools. Every surgical suite attendant must wear personal protective clothing including surgical gloves, a water impermeable resistant surgical gown with long sleeves, a surgical mask, and full-face protection with a face-shield. It is recommended that the surgery be performed by experienced surgeons and anesthetists and sufficiently trained personnel to reduce operative time and the duration of exposure to infectious aerosols. Use of diathermy and power tools should be kept to a minimum. It is essential to wash the hands prior to touching the face, eyes, or nose after removal of protective apparel.

Power Tools ergonomics

Power tools ideally should be used wherever feasible. Motor power is better than muscle power. Yet design considerations and surgeon comfort and awareness both, are equally important towards delivering a good result and avoiding operator and equipment breakdown. What design characteristics need be considered in their selection?
  • Span: Recommended maximum distance between 2 handles of a span type tool is 3.5 inches for men and 3.12 inches for women.
  • Curve:The curve of the handle should not be greater than 0.5 inches over its length.
  • Diameter: Optimum diameter is dependant on hand size, grip required and task repetitions with the tool..
  • Length: Minimum handle length for any tool is 4 inches and for tools used with gloves, 0.5 inches is added.
  • Shape:The shape of the handle should allow the forces to be distributed over as large an area as possible.
  • Handle: Although in some cases, a larger handle decreases the forces to the small joints of the hand, they may require the hand to utilize muscle groups for which the motor cortex in our nervous system may not be ideally suited.
  • Ability to grip the equipment: The pressure of the handle should be borne over fat pads of hands avoiding mechanical stresses. Also handles with grooves often do not fit the shape and size of the users hands and thus may place pressure on the delicate structures of the hands. Non- grooved handles may actually be better ergonomically.
  • Phalyngeal ends: These should prevent hands from sliding onto dangerous parts of tools that may be either hot or sharp. They should minimize need for tight pinching or grasping.
  • Texture: Adequate friction helps to avoid fatigue. Rubber handles provide more friction for a good grip and reduce pressure overall.
  • Vibrations: No more than 30 minutes of direct exposure to vibrating tools is recommended at a stretch and only at particular frequencies deemed safe.

Safety requirements and compliance standards

The process of designing in safety is a must to ensure that electrical medical products succeed in meeting both regulatory requirements and market prospects. Projects are often delayed because the product safety requirements are underestimated in the initial design phase. The European Economic Council (EEC) publishes the Medical Devices Directives (MDD; 93/42/EEC; http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/medical_devices/index.htm), which declare EN 60601-1 (identical to IEC 60601-1) a harmonized standard. For products complying with EN 60601-1, this declaration gives a “presumption of conformity” to a majority of the essential requirements of the directives. Meeting the essential requirements is a major step toward receiving a CE mark for a device.

Guidelines for the surgeon

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has researched and has developed many helpful guidelines for hand tool use to minimize occupational hazards.
  1. Keep the wrists straight. Avoid bending or rotating the wrists.
    Solution: Bend the tool, not the wrist. Many types of bent-handle tools are available. The ‘handshake’ is a neutral wrist position.


  2. Avoid standing still in one place when using a heavy tool.
    Solution: Reduce the size and weight of the tool. To help avoid neck strain, keep the elbows low and slightly bent when using heavy tools.


  3. Avoid stressing soft tissues such as the palms of the hands or fingers. Tools that create pressure on the base of the palm can interrupt circulation and nerve function.
    Solution: Look for well-designed tools with finger grooves that fit the worker’s hand. Short-handled tools may be less stressful to soft tissues.


  4. Avoid tools that require a lot of grip force to use or to hold.
    Solution: Certain tools are made with a compressible gripping surface. This is usually better than hard plastic.


  5. Avoid tools requiring finger grip.
    Solution: Select tools that use a full-hand power grip.


  6. Avoid tools with sharp edges and pinch points.
    Solution: Select tools that will not cut or pinch the hands or fingers, even when gloves are worn.


  7. Avoid tools that require trigger-finger action to operate.
    Solution: Select tools with large switches that enable the tool to be operated using all four fingers.


  8. Keeps hands free from heat and cold. Excessive temperatures can affect manual dexterity.
    Solution: If possible, change the work location and/or wear gloves.


  9. Avoid excessive vibration. Excessive vibration can have an adverse affect on circulation.
    Solution: Select tools with features that control or limit the transmission of vibration to the extremities and whole body.


  10. Wear gloves that fit. Tight-fitting gloves can put pressure on the hands. Loose-fitting gloves reduce grip strength. Gloves reduce friction, making it harder to hold the device. They reduce the sensory input so that the power exerted by the operator on the tissue is difficult to judge. In general, gloves affect dexterity and the ability to grip. Solution: Provide a selection of gloves of different sizes.

Recommended Reading

  1. Transmission and Prevention of Occupational Infections in Orthopaedic Surgeons, Kwok Chuen Wong, Kwok Sui Leung. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:1065-1076 (2004)
  2. Noise exposure in the orthopaedic operating theatre: a significant health hazard, Hamish Love. ANZ Journal of Surgery Vol. 73 Issue 10,Pages 836 – 838. Published online: 9 Oct 2003.
  3. How to Choose and Use Hand and Power Tools to Reduce Risk of Injury. Industrial Ergonomics: Prevent Injury from Hand and Power Tool Use. Brandon J. Luskin, M.D. www.spineuniverse.com

New Advances In Anti-TNF Therapy For RA


Author: Nicola O’Connell

Golimumab, a new anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) treatment, has shown that it is a promising treatment option for different patient groups with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including patients for whom anti-TNF therapies have previously failed. New findings, presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Annual Congress of Rheumatology in June, indicate that this second-generation, fully human monoclonal antibody is likely to become a key therapy in RA management. Golimumab is currently in the most comprehensive Phase III development programme to date for an anti-TNF alpha biologic therapy. The GOlimumab After Former anti-TNF Therapy Evaluated in RA (GO-AFTER) study, involving 461 patients with active RA, was the first randomised, double-blind study in patients with active RA who had previously received another anti-TNF inhibitor. Findings showed that 35 per cent and 38 per cent of patients receiving every four-week subcutaneous injections of golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint of at least 20 per cent improvement in arthritis symptoms (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] 20) at week 14, compared with 18 per cent of patients receiving placebo. These results were maintained through six months. Interestingly, 58 per cent of patients whose prior anti-TNF-alpha therapy had been discontinued due to lack of efficacy experienced a significant improvement with golimumab. “Our findings show that golimumab holds great promise in various RA patient populations, including those patients who have previously discontinued other TNF inhibitors,” said Josef S. Smolen (left), MD, professor and Chairman, Department of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna and lead study investigator. “Golimumab may provide an appropriate treatment option to the many people facing the consequences of this debilitating disease.”

In combination with MTX

Two additional studies presented at EULAR demonstrate that golimumab significantly improves signs and symptoms of RA among methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients, as well as patients with active RA despite ongoing treatment with MTX. The GOlimumab Before Employing methotrexate as the First-line Option in the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis of Early onset (GO-BEFORE) study involved 637 patients who had not previously been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) MTX. Patients treated with golimumab in combination with MTX experienced improvement in signs and symptoms of arthritis as well as in disease activity. In the primary analysis of the combined group of patients receiving either golimumab 50 mg or 100 mg in combination with MTX, 38 per cent achieved at least 50 per cent improvement in signs and symptoms of RA (ACR 50) through week 24, compared with 29 per cent of patients receiving placebo plus MTX.

RA Statistics

  • More than 350,000 people in Britain and over 9.7 million people worldwide have rheumatoid arthritis
  • According to the World Health Organization, the incidence of RA in Europe is expected to increase over the next decade as the population ages.
  • The most common age for the disease to start is between 40 and 50
  • RA occurs approximately two to three times more often in women than in men.
  • Although the cause of RA is not known, genetic and environmental factors may contribute to the disease.
  • As well as inflammation of the joints, swelling, difficulty moving, and pain, symptoms of RA also include loss of appetite, fever, loss of energy, and anaemia.
  • If not monitored and treated as early as possible, RA can cause serious joint deformation in 70-80% of patients.
  • The joint pain of RA can impact a patient’s ability to perform normal daily activities, limit job opportunities, and make family and household responsibilities a challenge.
  • Many RA patients experience some degree of depression, anxiety, and/or feelings of helplessness.
In the GOlimumab FOR subjects With Active RA Despite MTX (GO-FORWARD), study, both the 50 mg and 100 mg doses of golimumab were studied in patients whose disease was active despite ongoing treatment with MTX. The study, which involved 444 patients, found that 55 per cent of patients receiving golimumab 50 mg plus MTX experienced at least 20 per cent improvement in signs and symptoms of RA (ACR 20) at week 14, compared to 33 per cent of patients receiving placebo and MTX. Improvements were seen after the first clinical assessment, which was four weeks after the first golimumab injection, and generally continued to improve over time.

Further development of anti-TNF therapy

It is anticipated that golimumab will be launched in the UK in early 2009, following the March 2008 application to the European Medicines Agency, requesting its approval as a monthly subcutaneous treatment for adults with RA, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. The drug will join three other anti-TNFs currently available in the UK and approved by NICE to treat RA: etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab. Since the discovery that TNF· plays a role in RA, the introduction of anti-TNF agents has helped to revolutionalise treatment for patients. The agents were discovered by Emeritus Professor Sir Ravinder Maini and Professor Marc Feldmann, of the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology in London. The researchers found that proinflammatory cytokines were present in inflamed joints, and that a single cytokine – TNF – could drive the disease process. Anti-TNFs represent an important advancement over the older DMARDs, which include MTX, sulfasalazine, leflunomide and azathioprine. While these traditional drugs target broad aspects of the immune disease, aiming to dampen down the immune system, anti-TNFs have a more specific mode of action. The biological therapies work by switching off TNF, which stimulates cells to produce the inflammation response leading to swelling of joints and pain. Anti-TNF therapies have been shown to not only diminish signs and symptoms of the disease, but also prevent joint damage. Randomised, placebo-controlled, multi-centre clinical trials of human TNF alpha inhibitors have demonstrated their consistent and remarkable efficacy in controlling signs and symptoms, with a favorable safety profile, in approximately two thirds of patients for up to two years, in addition to their ability to retard joint damage (Feldman, 2001). Most of the patients studied were already using disease-modifying drugs, or had failed to improve on them, but research also suggests that earlier treatment with the agents can be as, if not more, beneficial (Breedveld, 2004; Baumgartner, 2004).

NICE guidance

However, the use of these agents is more restricted in the UK than elsewhere. Comments Paul Emery (right), Professor of Rheumatology and Lead Clinician of Rheumatology at Leeds Teaching Hospitals, lead investigator of the GO-BEFORE study and new President-Elect of EULAR: “The UK has the lowest use of anti-TNFs in Europe and the situation is very unsatisfactory for patients. “These drugs make a huge difference to how patients feel and the opportunity to use them as optimal therapy would make the biggest change in RA management. In the US, the agents are used from the beginning, and much better results are produced.” Currently, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends that anti-TNF therapy is prescribed for patients with active RA who have been treated with at least two DMARDs (one should be MTX), which have failed to suitably control the disease, have not sufficiently reduced symptoms or have produced adverse events. By comparison, a recently updated consensus statement on biological treatments, by experts in Europe and the USA, still advises that biological treatments should be considered after the failure of one DMARD in patients with active RA – although active RA is undefined (Furst, 2005). The NICE guidelines state that two pre-assessments of Disease Activity Score (DAS28) should be performed a month apart. In an article published in Rheumatology last year, Smith et al questioned the need for this preassessment protocol, and after performing a retrospective audit of data from six centres to determine the stability of DAS28 between assessments, they found that there is no significant change in the DAS28 over the month waiting to go onto anti-TNF therapy. Therefore, they concluded a single assessment of the DAS28 would suffice to enable patients to go on to anti-TNF treatment (Smith, 2007). NICE has also been criticised for its recent decision – announced at the end of July – advising against allowing patients to use a second anti-TNF treatment for RA if the first is not effective. Ailsa Bosworth, Chief Executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, commented: “This decision is another nail in the coffin for the treatment of RA in England and Wales. NICE are re-writing the rules of RA treatment in this country ignoring the clinical effectiveness of drugs and ignoring the views of patients and clinicians.” Anti-TNFs are, without question, a major leap forward in the treatment of RA. For some patients, they have the potential to transform management. As Professor Emery says: “Patients who are more likely to get structural damage would benefit most from anti-TNF therapy with MTX. We can identify these patients and easily model the treatment to those patients.” As it stands, the NICE guidance restricts the use of anti-TNFs in the UK; consequently, not all patients who could benefit from them are benefitting from them. But new evidence, such as the GO-AFTER study, and the introduction of new drugs, like golimumab, may lead to broader recommendations and enable many more patients with RA to benefit from anti-TNF therapies.

References

  1. Baumgartner SW, Fleischmann RM, Moreland LW et al. Eternercept (Enbrel) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with recent onset versus established disease: improvement in disability. J Rheumatol. 2004 31: 1532-1537
  2. Breedveld FC, Emery P, Keystone E et al. Infliximab in active early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004 63: 149-155
  3. Feldmann M, Maini RN. Anti-TNF alpha therapy of rheumatoid arthritis: what have we learned? Annu Rev Immunol. 2001;19:163-96
  4. Furst D, Breedveld F, Kalden J et al. Updated consensus statement on biological agents, specifically tumour necrosis factor (TNF·) blocking agents and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra), for the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 64:iv2–iv14
  5. Smith N, Gadsby K, Butt S, Carruthers D, Deeming A et al. Is pre- assessment for anti-TNF therapy in RA necessary in the UK? Analysis of DAS28 in six centres. Rheumatol 2007;46(10):1557-9

Tourniquet - A S-MART Concept

S-MART™ - A New Concept in Exsanguination and
Tourniquet Techniques


Author: Simon Axon MB(Sci)

Introduction

Creating a reliable sterile field through exsanguination and arterial occlusion under tourniquet is a practise widely used in Orthopaedic Surgery in order to provide the surgeon with optimal visual capacity and to minimise blood loss. Achieving exsanguination can be time consuming and the effectiveness is variable due to variations in technique. It often employs the use of multi-patient devices such as the Rhys–Davies Exsanguinators which could increase the risk of surgical site infections through contamination of the field adjacent to the surgical site. This article reviews the current techniques and discusses a new concept for creating a sterile, bloodless field on a limb in around 15 seconds using a unique new product – the S-MART™ sterile exsanguinating tourniquet system.


History of Tourniquet use

The use of tourniquets for both upper and lower limb surgery has been common practice in amputations for many centuries. However, although methods of exsanguination used today (such as limb elevation and the Esmarch bandage) appear to date back to the early 19th century, it was not until around 1860 that the use of bloodless surgery was first applied, by Joseph Lister, in procedures other than amputations. Exsanguinating the limb prior to surgery holds numerous advantages including establishing a clear operating field, reducing overall blood loss and reducing the risk of micro-emboli on tourniquet release. The limb is usually exsanguinated through elevation, Esmarch Bandage or Rhys-Davies techniques. The tourniquet is then applied to the limb to prevent the blood from returning to the exsanguinated limb during surgery. The tourniquet is usually a pneumatic cuff, which is placed on the upper arm or thigh and is inflated by a machine to a pre-determined pressure. This pressure is typically 200-250mmHg for upper and 300-350mmHg for lower limbs although this may vary with limb size and the systolic pressure of the patient. The ideal is to provide a clear bloodless field throughout the duration of surgery.


Tourniquet techniques and issues

In order to help reduce the risk of surgical site infections and cross contamination, the tourniquet is generally placed well away from the operative site as it is usually a non-sterile device with non-sterile attachments, but even then issues can arise when using pneumatic tourniquets on the thighs of obese patients where fixation and slippage can be a problem.


Exsanguination is important for a clear visual operating field; however exsanguination devices are also often non-sterile, made of perishable materials, time consuming to apply and their effectiveness can be user dependant.


Similarly, slippage can cause distal migration of the non-sterile items resulting in loss of pressure thereby reducing the effectiveness of the initial exsanguination.


Figure 2:
Benefits of S-MART for Surgeon and Patient Sterile
  • Tourniquet contamination may be a risk factor for the development of surgical site infection in orthopaedic surgery.10
  • Apply the device after limb preparation. This reduces the tourniquet time for the patient making surgery less uncomfortable under local anaesthetic.
  • Device can be placed close to the wound site resulting in a smaller volume of ischaemic tissue.
  • Improved infection control - especially when a cuff would need to be placed close to a wound site eg: during elbow surgery
Economic Benefits
  • Saves time over current practice due to rapid exsanguination process 3 in 1 application
  • Exsanguination, stockinette placement and arterial occlusion in one easy movement
Quick and easy to use
  • Reduces resource requirement and saves theatre time
Superior exsanguination
  • S-MART™ applies constant pressure leading to superior exsanguination. Particularly important with intricate surgery eg: paediatrics
Reduced skin pressure
  • Selecting the right system can reduce the skin pressure required to achieve arterial occlusion
No slippage
  • Once it’s on, it’s on! Perfect for tapered limbs eg: paediatric and obese
No inflation
  • Cannot lose pressure therefore ensuring continued occlusion throughout surgery
Wide range of devices
  • Will occlude limbs from 14cm to 90cm and systolic pressure up to 190mmHg (depending on selected system)
Narrow
  • Lower pressure gradients have been shown to help maintain peripheral nerve integrity.9






















A new concept and approach to exsanguination and arterial occlusion


So, S-MART™ is not just a tourniquet, it is a sterile, latex free, single use device that exsanguinates, places a sterile stockinette and occludes the artery. The S-MART™ device is placed on the patient by the scrubbed surgeon or a member of the scrub team after the limb has undergone skin preparation. The device can be used for any procedure from carpal tunnel work to Bilateral TKR. This new practice concept provides several potential benefits over the traditional methods (Fig 2).



How the device works

The S-MART™ uses a simple yet innovative approach to limb exsanguination and arterial occlusion. The basis of the idea stems from the original Esmarch device invented by Johann T. Friederich von Esmarch in the 19th century. The name Esmarch is today widely associated with the elasticated bandages used for limb exsanguination but the original Esmarch device was an altogether more innovative approach The Esmarch device was a rubber tube that was wound tightly around the limb and then moved proximally using a wooden roller. This process provided consistent pressure leading to good exsanguination but the device then also served as a tourniquet at the appropriate placement site. The S-MART™ uses a similar idea in order to provide superior exsanguination1 and tourniquet properties in a single device. In the case of S-MART™, the rubber tube is replaced by a silicone ring, the tensile properties of which vary by device type, depending on the force required to generate the appropriate internal pressures. The device’s pull straps facilitate placement and a stockinette unravels during application in order to provide a sterile barrier. The dimensions of the patients’ limbs vary as does their systolic pressure. An understanding of both is required to ensure that the correct S-MART™ is chosen for surgery. So, the device is available in sizes for upper and lower limbs. There are also sizes that are appropriate for extreme limb dimensions. The S-MART™ small is used for small or paediatric limbs2,3 and the extra large for oversized limbs4 covering thighs with a circumference of up to 90 cm. So, before selecting the appropriate S-MART™ device from the selection chart (Fig 3), the limb circumference at the desired placement site should be measured along with the patients’ systolic pressure.


In practice, product selection is straightforward and quick. Generally, surgery on the arm5 or foot and ankle6 should employ the use of the S-MART™ yellow size; this will work for systolic pressures of 190mmHg and below. For thighs select the S-MART™ brown size, this too work for systolic pressures of up to 190mm Hg. For extra large thighs the S-MART™ XL black and white can be used. The device comes double wrapped and should be offered into the sterile field using normal aseptic technique. The patient’s fingers or toes are placed into the device aperture and the straps pulled outwards and proximally along the limb. This rolls the S-MART™ proximally along the limb. Exsanguination takes place during proximal movement of the device as does the application of the stockinette. The final resting position of the S-MART™ is the point where occlusion occurs. Due to the facts that as it is both sterile and has a narrow profile, versatility in site placement can be achieved. Once in position the S-MART™ has exsanguinated the limb and occluded the vessels at the point of placement so the stockinette can be cut away, or a window opened through it at the surgical site. The whole process of rolling the S-MART™ on and achieving a sterile bloodless field with occlusion takes approximately 15 seconds once initial training has been completed. In practice, once the S-MART™ is on it stays in position and does not roll or slip even on tapered or obese limbs. At the end of the procedure removal of the device is achieved by using a scalpel to cut through the top layers of stockinette and the blue silicone rubber ring that lies just below the stockinette around the device. The S-MART™ gently parts and can be removed, thereby refusing the exsanguinated limb. Batch traceability stickers are available on the outer packaging, and the device pressure is also printed on the outer package should this need to be recorded. In practise the pressures produced by the S-MART™ are often less than the standard pneumatic tourniquet pressures.

Discussion, Practical and Safety Issues

Using this product offers many potential advantages to the clinician and the patient. As it is a new technique there are some practical points to consider too. The draping procedure might need to be slightly modified in some cases. There is no need for the traditional method of exsanguination, as this is achieved by the surgeon as the product is applied. Full support is provided by the supplier during evaluations to make any minor modifications to practise and run the trials as smoothly as possible. The tourniquet time should be started once the S-MART™ is in position on the limb, and the product can stay on the limb for a maximum of 120 minutes as indicated for standard tourniquets. During the development of this device, particular attention was paid to ensuring the continued safety of the patient. Issues such as neuropraxia and tourniquet burns have been reported at a frequency approximating 1 in 8,0009 uses of the pneumatic tourniquet, however, the S-MART™ has undergone over 80,000 uses in Europe and the USA with no such reported incidents.


Conclusions

This is a relatively new concept for the UK, but it is being well received for a wide range of orthopaedic and plastic surgical procedures including total knee arthroplasty, foot and ankle procedures6,7,8, hand5 and elbow surgery. Although the S-MART™ will not completely replace the pneumatic tourniquet it is ideal for use in elective cases and is being readily adopted. The use of S-MART™ is being driven by the infection control benefits of single patient use coupled with the creation of a superior bloodless field, improved access to operative sites, versatility of site placement and time saving capabilities make S-MART™ an important and significant development in the use of tourniquets.


References

  1. Superior Exsanguination with S-MART™ in Lower and Upper Extremities – a photographic testimonial. OHK Medical Devices Ltd.
  2. Eidelman M et al. A novel elastic exsanguination tourniquet as an alternative to the pneumatic cuff in paediatric orthopaedic limb surgery. Journal of paediatric orthopaedics B 2006 Sept; 15 (5): 379-384
  3. GP de Kiewiet. Moving to a new type of sterile and single use tourniquet for orthopaedic surgery. Orthopaedic Product News. March/April 2006.
  4. Prof Gavriely, S Freer, N Suchard and O Gavriely. Tourniquet and the Obese patient. Prepared by OHK Medical devices.
  5. Boiko M and Roffman M Evolution of a Novel tourniquet device for bloodless surgery of the hand. Journal of Hand Surgery (British and European Volume, 2004) 29B: 2: 185 - 187
  6. Henderson M. Exsanguinating Tourniquet Assessed. The Clinical Services Journal. September 2006.
  7. Melamed E et al. The use of a surgical exsanguination Tourniquet (SET) in Foot and Ankle surgery. White paper from Rambam Medical centre, Haifa, Israel.
  8. Mohan A et al. A randomized controlled study looking at the use of S-MART™and Pneumatic tourniquet in foot surgery. White paper from Kingston General Hospital, Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, UK.
  9. Ochoa J et al. Anatomical changes in peripheral nerves compressed by a pneumatic tourniquet. J.Anat. (1972), 113, 3. pp. 433-455
  10. Walsh E, Ben-David D, Ritter M, Mechrefe A, Mermel L and DiGiovanni C. Microbial colonization of tourniquets used in orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics 2006; 29: 709

Suture Anchor Systems in Orthopaedic Surgery


Author: George Joseph, Kingsley Draviaraj , Ford Qureshi
Institution: The Royal Infirmary, Doncaster, info@shoulderelbowsolutions.com

Adequate attachment of soft tissues to bone has been one of the most difficult aspects in orthopaedic surgery and was initially left to natural soft tissue healing, with adequate scar tissue formation. For this to occur, the tissue had to be maintained in a position of contact by immobilising the limb for a long period of time. Early methods of soft tissue attachment were developed to try and improve the ease of fixation strength and placement. Techniques involved the drilling of bone tunnels, with or without pull through sutures, or may have used fixation of soft tissues to bone using screws, washers, staples and even tapered plugs. A further development of bone fasteners and toggle anchors required a larger access to the underlying bone with a higher potential for damage during the implant insertion. These initial developments were used in conjunction with the reconstruction of knee ligament injuries, where appropriate ligament tension was needed. Bone spikes, washers, staples and also interference screws were therefore developed to achieve this. The disadvantages, with the exception of the interference screws, were that they caused a lot of noticeable discomfort for the patient. Over the last decade dramatic improvements in arthroscopic surgery has led to smaller scars and an early return to a normal function. As the needs arose, so did the ingenuity of man to develop an innovative material for anchoring soft tissue to bone. Despite the improvement of stability achieved with these earlier devices, problems still arose due to the size of these fixation implants that had to be passed through smaller arthroscopic wounds. There was also a recognised difficulty in the fixation of these implants around the joints because they could become loose and cause further problems within the joint itself. Modern bone anchors have been developed to give an adequate anchorage and an appropriate tissue tension without any discomfort. Goble and Somers developed the first “screw-in” bone anchor, that provided a combined technology of a versatile suture material with an easy insertion, in August 1985 and the U.S patent was awarded in December 1986.

So what are the successful attributes of a bone anchor?

1. They should be easy to insert:
The current designs of bone anchors allow them to be inserted arthroscopically or through a very small per-cutaneous incision.

2. Provide a firm anchor to the bone:

The strength of the current designs of anchors is superior to the more historical trans-osseous suturing techniques, which were used in shoulder surgery. However, the commonest point of failure with these anchors is the suture or at the knot/tissue interface, especially if it is not well tied! With the development of stronger suture cord materials, the suture does not fail unless it is damaged in some way during the surgery.


3. Must be simple and reliable to use:
Current anchors are disposable implants and may come with a drill bit or bone punch. These are easy to use and can be rapidly inserted into bone without much effort, especially through a percutaneous incision.

4. May be bio-absorbable or metallic depending:

Metal anchors were first produced for the soft tissue fixation of shoulder injuries. Unfortunately, due to the reported complications of articular damage from migrating anchors and the image distortion seen on postoperative magnetic resonance films, they became quickly unfashionable. Bio-absorbable anchors were then developed to avoid these problems. These new anchors have an equal pullout strength to the metal anchors, with a lower reported complication rate. Biodegradable polymers which are currently found in modern suture anchors include poly-L-lactic acid, poly-D, L lactic acid, polydioxanone, polyglycolic acid and their copolymers.

5 Sutures must have strong mechanical properties:
Suture anchors are now available preloaded with a choice of conventional braided polyester sutures or a version of an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. Most suture anchors have two associated suture strands. The manner in which these sutures are attached to the anchor can vary, with separate eyelets or slots. These can be parallel or orientated at different angles to one another.


What are the different types of anchoring systems?


Some anchors have a very large single eyelet that can accommodate more than two suture strands. There are many types of anchoring systems for most of the modern anchors. Most of them are barbed, a screw or a rivet type of bone fastener.

Current anchors have a leading edge which may be either inserted into a pre drilled hole or directly screwed into bone. These bone anchors also have a fixed to or fully mobile suture mount (suture eyelet) within the anchor system itself .

Barbed anchors have fins orientated in a longitudinal direction. They are elastically deformed on compression (insertion) and plastically deformed on distraction (pulling) and so hold on to the bone well once inserted.

Screw fit anchors are similar to a conventional screw but instead of a head there is an eyelet (suture anchor interface) to accommodate the suture strands.

Screw anchors have a higher load to failure value than non-screw designs.

The biodegradable anchors have a lower load to failure compared with metal anchors. Relevant issues for selection of suture anchors are summarised in Table 1 (Shoulder Concepts, 2008 Boileau.)

Table 1

Anchor design
Anchor size
Threaded/Barbed/expandable/tack
Specific thread design
Partially or fully threaded
Anchor material
Non absorbable (steel vs. titanium)
Absorbable
Initial properties
Absorption characteristics
Eyelet
Recessed or prominent
Hard eyelet or suture eyelet
Edge design
Mechanical performance
Straight pull-out
Cyclic load
Cortical vs. cancellous bone
Suture selection
Absorbable or non-absorbable
Standard or ultra high strength
Revision issues
Retrievable or permanent
Bone loss/ osteolysis
Impact on imaging
Ergonomic issues: ease of insertion Cost


How can bone anchors fail?

Barber et al. have published extensively on the fixation strengths of various suture anchors.

1. Soft tissue strength:
The tissue they are used to repair may be degenerate and weak and therefore fail at this interface.

2. Suture strength:

Although most modern suture materials are strong they may be damaged in the suture eyelets or when manipulating them through tissue. This can occur when using suture passing devices.

3. Bone anchor strength (purchase):

Caution most be exercised when dealing with very soft osteoporotic bone, as the bone may not hold the anchor very well. Under cyclic-loading conditions, anchor fixation strength is decreased compared with single-pullout tests. The suture/anchor interface is known to be the weakest link. In most cases the suture can wear at the eyelet and so the use of larger suture materials with larger anchors can provide a better strength before failure. Suture breakage at the knot is the predominant failure mode for biodegradable anchors inserted into cortical bone.


New anchor developments

The knotless tissue anchor:

This anchor has been developed to cater for the increased volume of arthroscopic procedures. Surgeons can find knot tying difficult and also knots are known to be the weak point in tissue repairs. Although knotless anchors have a similar pullout strength to knot-tying anchors, they have an increased gap formation if there is an immediate loading.

The design of knotless tissue anchors involves the following:

1. Anchor:

Expandable anchors which after fastened to the bone may hold the suture material next to the anchor and so avoid using knots .

2. Loop locking mechanism:

Where the loop of the thread that forms a knot can be jammed into the body of the anchor

3. New suture material:

Here ultrasonic energy is used to weld/melt the suture material so that after fixation a knot can be avoided.

References

  1. The development of suture anchors for use in soft tissue fixation to bone. Goble E. M, Somers W. K, Clark, R, Olsen R. E : AJSM. Vol 22 (2),1994: 236-239.
  2. Suture anchor failure strength an in vivo study. Barber F.A, Cawley P, Prudich J.F. Arthroscopy 9(6).1993: 647-652.
  3. Internal fixation strength of suture anchors-update. Barber F.A, Herbert M.A , Click J.N. Athroscopy 13(3).1997:355-362.
  4. Shoulder Concepts 2008.Edt, Boileau P:119-210. (Nice Shoulder Course 2008).

Hip Replacement - The Current Situation


Author: Mr Robert Marston BSc FRCS (Edinburgh and England) FRCS (Ortho), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Forty years ago hip replacement became a reproducibly successful treatment for arthritis. In terms of quality adjusted life years (QUALYS) it is the most successful treatment intervention across all disciplines of both surgery and medicine.Despite being such a well established procedure there are continuing innovations in order to obtain the holy grail of hip replacement, the everlasting prosthesis. Unfortunately some of these innovations are ill thought out and poorly researched before being introduced into clinical practice. An unsuspecting public are often beguiled by ill informed articles in daily papers. More than one of the major hip manufacturers has been quoted as saying they will advertise direct to the public, bypassing professional opinion and peer review, in order to promote their latest product. Given the volume of worldwide sales involved the implant companies have a lot at stake financially, they therefore adopt an aggressive stance in order to achieve sales. The Swedish Hip Register was started in the mid-1970’s and rapidly adopted by the other Nordic countries so that orthopaedic surgeons now have well documented evidence of what works in hip replacements, giving good long term results, and what doesn’t.

What Remains Controversial?

At present the following alterations to standard hip replacement or technique are being debated. Patients need a well informed, dispassionate opinion by their surgeon or general practitioner.
  1. Bearing surfaces and articular head size
  2. Minimally invasive surgery
  3. Resurfacing
  4. Computer assisted surgery
1. Bearing Surfaces and Femoral Head Size

Most recent research has concentrated on the bearing couple of the hip joint, the material which acts as the articulating surface of the ball and socket. The nature of the material which acts as the articulating surface of the ball and socket is critical to the final success of the implant. This traditionally has been a metal ball bearing on a high density polyethylene (HDPE) socket. Polyethylene wear particles are known to incite a macrophage (immune) response in some patients which leads to bone loss and eventual loosening of the implant. This tends to be more common in younger active patients.


In view of this, articulating couples avoiding polyethylene have been developed such as ‘metal on metal’, ‘ceramic on ceramic’ and ‘ceramic on polyethylene’. All these combinations are commonly used in patients at present and are being appraised. New types of polyethylene are also being tested, for example, ones impregnated with vitamin E are in development. The presence of vitamin E is thought to make the polyethylene more resistant to wear by having a greater resistance to oxidative breakdown.

Metal on metal articulations are very hard wearing. However, there are some isolated reports of an accelerated form of inflammation (lymphocytic vasculatis), which causes pain and soft tissue erosion around the implants. It seems that it is likely that these problems are due to a hard metal bearing on a softer metal. However, this problem might be due to the way in which the implants are orientated, especially the pelvic socket or ‘acetabular component’ which can increase this risk.

Ceramic on ceramic articulations are extremely hard wearing however there have been instances of catastrophic failure. Since the only material harder than ceramic is diamond it means that any future revisions must have a ceramic on ceramic bearing since it is impossible to rid the joint space of particulate ceramic material. In addition, some patients with ceramic bearings complain that their hip “squeaks” due to problems with surface lubrication in these types of bearings.

For many years the European standard head size was 28 mm. This was a compromise between stability (which increases with increasing head size) and wear of metal on polyethylene implants (which reduces with head size).

Over the last ten years there has been a tendency to have larger bearing couples since this is thought to not only improve stability but also improve range of movements.

2. Minimally Invasive Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery started in the United States. Initially three separate 2 inch incisions were used, later modified to two separate 2 inch incisions. Surgeons using the technique in Europe realized that there was an unacceptably high incidence of nerve injury, femoral fracture and implant mal-position.

In the UK and mainland Europe the ‘two incision’ technique has been abandoned, however, a single incision from the front of the thigh ‘anterior’ or single incision from the back ‘posterior’ approach has been developed with success.

Those of us who are routinely using a minimally invasive approach feel that there are benefits to the patient in terms of reduced pain; blood loss and rehabilitation time, however, prospective randomised studies are yet to verify this.

My own approach involves a 6 to 7.5 cm posterior incision whereby the sciatic nerve is seen and protected throughout the procedure. The main muscle (gluteus maximus) is split parallel to the line of its fibres. The only muscles that are actually cut are the short external rotators which are then sutured back together again.

My patients usually have the operation in the morning; get up full weight bearing on the same afternoon with two crutches (full weight bearing) and use two sticks the following day. On their second postoperative day they are normally walking with one walking stick having succeeded walking up and down stairs. Patients stay in hospital for between two and four nights postoperatively. It is rare for patients to go home on pain relief any stronger than paracetamol.

3. Resurfacing

Although often proclaimed as a new development, hip ‘resurfacing’ is in fact the first commonly accepted type of hip replacement.

It was originally developed by Smith Peterson in the United States and remained the gold standard of joint replacement until it was overtaken by the reproducibly reliable results of the Charnley Hip in the early sixties.

Over the intervening decades a variety of surgeons around the world have tried to make the technique work in the long term. The most recent reincarnation of hip resurfacing was developed in Birmingham. Articles often give the misleading impression that it isn’t a total hip replacement.

It is a disingenuous marketing ploy to suggest that a procedure that replaces the bearing surface of the femur and acetabulum is anything but a hip replacement. Whilst a cap is placed over the worn head of the femur, and therefore the femoral head itself is not removed, most surgeons would agree that to do a resurfacing properly requires a much greater surgical exposure.

The idea that it is ‘minimally invasive’ is in my view grossly misleading and untrue. Granted a small amount of spongy (cancellous) bone is not removed in the upper end of the bone (femoral metaphysic), however, the subsequent surgical dissection is much more involved.

Of more concern is the fact that there are no long term studies of the latest resurfacing methods. The longest follow up from Birmingham at the present time is eight years. Previous published studies show an increasing failure rate, probably due to a local lack of blood supply (avascularity) of the femoral neck and head, from eight years onwards. It remains to be seen whether the Birmingham hip avoids the mid term failure that has accompanied all previous ‘resurfacing’ techniques.

4. Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS)

There is a movement among certain orthopaedic surgeons to suggest that the gold standard of surgery is that performed with computer navigation. The adaptation of techniques that have been previously used in precise positioning (stereotactic) neurosurgery have been adopted for use in the knee, and more recently the hip.

In the knee it certainly has been shown that there is greater accuracy of alignment of components, however, this has not corresponded with any studies to show improved outcome in terms of pain, function or longevity of the replaced joint.

Recently computer navigation has been used for hip replacement. Undoubtedly the correct inclination and angle of the acetabular component is vital.Incorrect positioning of implants can lead to instability, increased wear or loosening.

Interest in the use of computer navigation has been particularly focused on metal on metal bearings. Whilst papers have shown that patients with problems following metal on metal hips more commonly have unacceptably high inclination angles or degrees of ante-version, none of these papers discuss findings or procedures at surgery such as removal of anterior or posterior bone growths (osteophytes), which are a cause of impingement of the components themselves.

Summary

My choice of hip replacement is based on the evidence of the Scandinavian Hip Register and my own experience of working in orthopaedics since 1988. In addition I get referred patients with hips requiring revision and therefore have first hand knowledge of the types of hips that fail unacceptably early. Based on that, my choice is an un-cemented metal on metal hip replacement in patients under 70 with the exception of women with advanced osteoporosis. Over the age of 70 I suggest that patients have a cemented total hip replacement with a ceramic head articulating on a high density polyethylene socket. Because the components are cemented into what is normally softer bone at this age there is immediate reliable ‘osseo’ integration of the prosthesis into the patient’s bone. Patients who have neurological conditions or previous stroke are given a constrained socket or a larger head size since they have an increased risk of dislocation. Finally some patients present with abnormal anatomy due to developmental dysplasia of the hip, previous surgery or trauma. Sometimes the abnormal bony anatomy dictates that they require a CAD CAM (Custom Aided Design Custom Aided Manufactured Hip). This is a bespoke hip which specifically recreates the correct anatomy specific to the patient.

Conclusion

Decision making in surgery should be based on ‘risk’ versus ‘benefit’ analysis. Whilst new technology is often promoted as being superior the benefits are often hypothetical and the risks unknown.Although “new” makes column inches - patients should be aware that it does not always equate with “better”.

Acknowledgements

This article first appeared in the medical education title inCapitalHealth (www.incapitalhealth.com) and is reproduced with permission. The article images are courtesy of William B. Kurtz, M.D. and taken from www.williambkurtz.com with permission.