Introduction:

To date, there have been few reports of the results of revisions for failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoM HA's). These series have included relatively modest numbers, and classification of the severity of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) has been under-reported. In this study, early outcomes and complications are analyzed as a function of pre-operative MRI grade and intra-operative ALTR severity to determine their prognostic value.

Computer navigation has the potential to revolutionise orthopaedic surgery, although according to the latest 7^th Annual NJR Report, only 2% of the 5 800 unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) performed in 2009 were carried out using ‘image guidance.’ The report also states an average 3-year revision rate for UKRs of 6.5%. Previous NJR data has shown that this figure rises up to 12% for certain types of prosthesis. We suspect that a significant proportion of these revisions are due to failure secondary to component malpositioning. We therefore propose that the use of computer navigation enables a more accurate prosthesis placement, leading to a reduction in the revision rate for early failure secondary to component malpositioning. Our early results of one hundred consecutive computer navigated UKRs are presented and discussed.

Ninety-two patients having had one hundred consecutive computer navigated UKRs were reviewed both clinically and radiographically. The Smith & Nephew Accuris fixed-bearing modular prosthesis was used in all cases, with the ‘Brainlab’ navigation system. Pre-operative aim was neutral tibial cut with three degrees posterior slope. Post-operative component alignment was measured with PACs web measuring tools. Patients were scored clinically using the Oxford Knee Score.

Our patient cohort includes 54 male knees and 46 female knees. Average age is 66.6yrs. Average length of stay was 3.7 days, (range 2–7.) With respect to the tibial component, average alignment was 0.7° varus, and 2.32° posterior slope. All components were within the acceptable 3 degrees deviation. Functional scores are very satisfactory, with an overall patient satisfaction rate of 97%.

To date, only one UKR has required revision. This was due to ongoing medial pain due to medial overhang, not related to computer navigation. There was one superficial infection, with full resolution following a superficial surgical washout, debridement and antibiotics. Unlike complications reported in the NJR, we report no peri-prosthetic fractures or patella tendon injuries.

Our results demonstrate accurate prosthesis placement with the use of computer navigation. Furthermore, clinical scores are highly satisfactory. Our current revision rate is 1% at a mean of 27 months post-op. Although longer-term follow-up of our group is required, our results compare very favourably to statistics published in the NJR, (average 3-year revision rate 6.5%.) The only major differences appear to be the type of prosthesis used and the use of computer navigation. It is our proposal that computer navigation reduces the number of revisions required due to component malpositioning and subsequent failure. Furthermore, we believe that this challenging surgery is made easier with the use of computer navigation. We expect our longer-term results to show significant benefits of computer navigation over conventional techniques.

Cervical spine collars are applied in trauma situations to immobilise patients' cervical spines. Whilst movement of the cervical spine following the application of a collar has been well documented, the movement in the cervical spine during the application of a collar has not been. There is universal agreement that C-spine collars should be applied to patients involved in high speed trauma, but there is no consensus as to the best method of application.

The clinical authors have been shown two different techniques on how to apply the C-spine collars in their Advanced Life Support Training (ATLS). One technique is the same as that recommended by the Laerdal Company (Laerdal Medical Ltd, Kent) that manufactures the cervical spine collar that we looked at. The other technique was refined by a Neurosurgeon with an interest in pre-hospital care. In both techniques the subjects' head is immobilised by an assistant whilst the collar is applied.

We aimed to quantify which of these techniques caused the least movement to the cervical spine. There is no evidence in the literature quantifying how much movement in any plane in the unstable cervical spine is safe. Therefore, we worked on the principle: the less movement the better.

The Qualisys Motion Capture System (Qualisys AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) was used to create an environment that would measure movement on the neck during collar application. This system consisted of cameras that were pre-positioned in a set order determined by trial and error initially. These cameras captured reflected infra-red light from markers placed on anatomically defined points on the subject's body. As the position of the cameras was fixed then as the patients moved the markers through space, a software package could deduce the relative movement of the markers to each camera with 6 degrees of freedom (6DOF).

Six healthy volunteers (3 M, 3 F; age 21-29) with no prior neck injuries acted as subjects. The collar was always applied by the same person. Each technique was used 3 times on each subject. To replicate the clinical situation another volunteer would hold the head for each test.

The movements we measured were along the x, y, and z axes, thus acting as an approximation to flexion, extension and rotation occurring at the C-spine during collar application. The average movement in each axis (x, y and z) was 8 degrees, 8 degrees and 5 degrees respectively for both techniques. No further data analysis was attempted on this small data set.

However this pilot study shows that our method enables researchers to reproducibly collect data about cervical spine movement whilst applying a cervical collar.