Materials and Methods: Gait analysis was performed in 20 patients with endoprosthesis replacement around the knee. The temporal parameters assessed during gait analysis were walking velocity, stride length, duration of stance, and goniometry of the knee. These parameters were compared with the functional outcome score of the MSTS.
Results: The mean free-paced walking velocity was 0.91 m/s (normal is 1.33 m/s), which was 68% lower than normal gait. The stride length and stance phase were shorter for the affected limb compared to normal (P < 0.05). However, the gait was symmetrical with no difference in stride length (P = 0.148), velocity (P = 0.918), knee flexion (P = 0.465), and knee extension (P = 0.321) between the affected and unaffected limbs. Sixteen patients demonstrated stiff knee gait, two had a flexed knee gait, and only two patients had normal gait during the stance phase. The mean MSTS score was 21. There was significant correlation between overall MSTS scores (P = 0.023), function (P = 0.039), and walking scores (P = 0.007).
Conclusion: Limb salvage surgery with endoprosthesis reconstruction around the knee gives good functional outcome, both objectively and subjectively, as evidenced by the symmetrical gait pattern and significant correlation with MSTS score. Despite decreased walking velocity, stride length, and stance phase of the operated limb, the patient still has a symmetrical gait.
Materials and Methods: Family members of 60 patients (one for each patient) who were undergoing major oncological surgery lasting more than 1 h were recruited and randomized into two groups (30 patients each). Group 1 (no SMS group) did not receive any text message while Group 2 (SMS group) received periodic intraoperative text messages. Respondents aged less than 16 years, those with associated psychiatric illnesses, and those who did not consent to the study were excluded. Anxiety among family members was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale for Anxiety (VAS-A) and Anxiety component of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A) at five different periods; (P1) 1 day prior to surgery (P2) at separation from family at the operation theatre (P3) 1 h after commencement of surgery (P4) immediately after completion of surgery, and (P5) 1 day after surgery.
Results: The mean VAS-A and HADS-S scores between both the groups did not show a statistically significant difference for P1, P2 and P5 assessment periods (preoperative period, separation in operation theatre, post-operative period). However, mean VAS-A and HADS-A scores were significantly higher for Group 1 compared to Group 2 during P3 and P4 periods, 1 h after commencement of surgery and completion of surgery, respectively.
Conclusion: Periodic text messages updating the status of ongoing surgery helps to reduce anxiety for family members of patients undergoing oncological surgery during the intraoperative period.
METHODS: A total of 142 patients from the Orthopaedics Oncology Database were included into this retrospective study. Kaplan-Meier curve and multivariate Cox proportional models were used to calculate the overall survival of patients with sarcoma who underwent radical excision surgery.
RESULTS: High preoperative LMR is significantly associated with better overall survival and prognosis in sarcoma patients, whereas high preoperative NLR is significantly associated with shorter overall survival and poorer prognosis. Multivariate analysis shows that LMR and NLR are good predictors for overall survival at 3 and 5 years after surgery, respectively. Patients with high preoperative lymphocytes count are associated with longer overall survival, but this association is not statistically significant. Our findings suggest that preoperative NLR and LMR are good predictive markers for survival of sarcoma patients.
CONCLUSION: LMR and NLR can be used to identify patients at risk for poor clinical outcome, so that a more aggressive course of treatment can be applied to improve outcome. These are cost-effective prognostic tools as they are calculated from routine preoperative peripheral blood counts. In conclusion, preoperative NLR and LMR are good prognostic markers for predicting the clinical outcome of patients with sarcoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty two patients with metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur undergoing LHR were recruited and randomized. Conventional technique was used in 16 cases and distal decompression of the medullary canal was carried out for the other 16 patients. The decompression was carried out through a trocar inserted into the distal medullary canal, connected to a vacuum suction. Quantity of emboli was detected through A4 chambers transesophageal echocardiography; the blood pressure and oxygen saturation readings were also recorded.
RESULTS: The decompression group experienced significantly lower Grade 2 and Grade 3 embolic events compared to the conventional group (11 vs. 26), and the duration of the embolic phenomena was shorter. Insertion of the stem and relocating the hip gave the highest amount embolic events. There was a significant drop in systolic blood pressure (SBP) in 12 out of 16 patients (75.0%) in the conventional group and 5 out of 16 patients in the decompression group (31.3%). This is statically significant (P = 0.0124). The average drop in SBP for the conventional group is 45.8 mmHg and the decompression group was 32.9 mmHg. Oxygen saturation remained at above 96% in the decompression group. However, in the conventional group, 25% of the patients had their oxygen saturation drop to below 96% during the insertion of stem and relocation of hip joint.
CONCLUSION: Distal femoral canal decompression is an effective method in reducing the risk of cardiopulmonary embolic events associated with LHR.