Treatment of XXXX in a regional Australian hospital.

@entity174 @entity1 @entity158 @entity3
AIM: To review our outcomes and compare the results of the @entity3 ( @entity3 ) to other implants for @entity174 management at a regional Australian hospital. METHODS: The @entity3 is a novel implant for the management of @entity174 . It is, however, technically demanding and treatment results have not yet been assessed outside tertiary centres. Twenty-seven @entity1 with 28 @entity174 who had been managed surgically at the Mackay Base Hospital from January 2004 to December 2010 were retrospectively enrolled and assessed clinically and radiologically. Outcomes were union, @entity158 , Lysholm score, knee range of motion, and complication rates. RESULTS: Twenty @entity174 were managed with the @entity3 and eight @entity174 were managed with alternative implants. Analysis of the surgical techniques revealed that 11 @entity174 managed with the @entity3 were performed according to the recommended principles ( @entity3 -R) and 9 were not ( @entity3 -N). Union occurred in 67.9% of @entity174 overall: 9/11 (82%) in the @entity3 -R group vs 5/9 (56%) in the @entity3 -N group and 5/8 (62.5%) in the alternative implant group. There was no statistically significant difference between @entity158 , Lysholm score, and complication rates between the groups. However, there was a trend towards the @entity3 -R group having superior outcomes which were clinically significant. There was a statistically significant greater range of median knee flexion in the @entity3 -R group with compared to the @entity3 -N group (P = 0.0143) and compared with the alternative implant group (P = 0.0454). CONCLUSION: The trends towards the benefits of the @entity3 procedure when correctly applied would suggest that not only should the @entity3 procedure be performed for @entity174 , but the correct principle of insertion is important in improving the @entity1 's outcome.
