6 results on '"Higgs, D"'
Search Results
2. The National Joint Registry Data Quality Audit of elbow arthroplasty.
- Author
-
Hamoodi Z, Shapiro J, Sayers A, Whitehouse MR, Watts AC, Abbott J, Abbott S, Adebayo O, Ahmad K, Ahrens P, Akinfala M, Al-Hadithy N, Al-Najjar M, Amirfeyz R, Ankarath S, Ashton F, Aulton K, Auplish S, Austin J, Ayeko S, Azhar R, Bahia R, Baines S, Baldomir M, Barai S, Barkham B, Barrett E, Batten T, Bavan L, Baxter J, Beaumont S, Bentley J, Bhabra G, Bhat M, Bhatt A, Bhingraj M, Bhutta A, Bingham S, Blastland J, Boardman D, Boateng M, Bojarska K, Boksh K, Booker S, Borreshi S, Bould M, Boulton L, Brannan L, Breidaka Z, Brereton R, Brinsden M, Brooker J, Brookes S, Broux C, Brown E, Browne J, Bryant R, Buchanan J, Buck L, Burnett K, Burrows M, Burt J, Burton D, Butt U, Campaner B, Candal-Couto J, Carvell H, Chakravarthy J, Chatterji S, Chaudhury S, Chauhan GS, Chojnowski A, Cittambalam J, Clark D, Gosia Clarke M, Clarke B, Clelland A, Cochrane R, Colbridge K, Cook H, Cooper B, Correa E, Craven J, Crawford J, Curtis S, Cuthbert R, Dainton J, Dale L, Davies S, Davis J, Davis V, Dean B, Dehler T, Dennis S, Der Tavitian J, Desai A, Dhillon SS, Dias R, Dickinson G, Dirckx M, Dixon O, Docker C, Dodenhoff R, Domos P, Draviaraj K, Drew S, Duff C, Duffin S, Durham P, Earnshaw K, Edakalathur J, Edwards M, Elahi Z, Else S, Emara M, Eng K, Esfandiari A, Esler C, Evans J, Everall A, Eyre-Brook A, Farhan-Alanie M, Federer S, Ferdinandus S, Finch M, Fischer J, Flood C, Forde C, Forder J, Fowler L, Franklin M, Gacaferi H, Gamble D, Garg S, Gill V, Ginley J, Glancey E, Glanville G, Gmati A, Goddard K, Goel J, Goldsmith C, Gooding B, Goodwin F, Goring B, Goude W, Guyver P, Haines S, Haque A, Hardley T, Haritonow S, Harnett L, Harris J, Harris M, Harrison J, Hauffe I, Hawken A, Hawkes D, Hay S, Haywood M, Hedge S, Hickey S, Hickinson A, Higgs D, Hill R, Hill S, Hind J, Hitchcock M, Holdcroft T, Holdcroft E, Holliday A, Hudson S, Hughes H, Imtiaz R, Iqbal S, Jabr Y, Jackson C, Jameson J, Jayme O, Jennings A, Jenvey C, Jewitt E, Jimenez A, Joby J, Jones A, Jones N, Jovanovic J, Kabala V, Kang N, Kausor G, Kaynes S, Keane C, Keen L, Kelly G, Kent M, Kent J, Kerr C, Kerr J, King C, Kinnair A, Kinsley G, Konarski A, Kord J, Kumar H, Kumar S, Lafferty R, Lancaster P, Levitt W, Lewin A, Li Y, Liew I, Yizhe Lim M, Lipscombe S, Lynch E, MacInnes S, Madden P, Maddocks N, Mahajan R, Mahoney R, Malik S, Mannan S, Maris A, Markey M, Martin C, Martin R, Masunda S, Mazis G, Mcauliffe AM, McBride T, McGowan A, Mckeown N, McLauchlan G, McNally D, Melton J, Miller J, Millyard C, Mitchell C, Mohamed F, Mohamed A, Charlotte Montgomery H, Munn D, Mutimer J, Nanda R, Neen D, Newton L, Newton A, Nicholl A, Nightingale J, Ogden E, Orton P, Oswald L, Page K, Paius M, Papanna M, Patel N, Paul C, Peach C, Pegg D, Penfold S, Phillips E, Pickering G, Plakogiannis C, Platt J, Pole C, Potter R, Povall K, Pradhan R, Prasad G, Price K, Pride J, Prins A, Qazzaz L, Radhakrishnan A, Ramesh A, Rashid A, Rashid A, Rasidovic D, Ratford E, Rayner J, Rhee J, Rice-Evans M, Ricketts M, Roach D, Waters ER, Robinson S, Robinson P, Rodgers S, Rogers E, Rooney A, Rossouw D, Roy B, Sadiqi M, Sagmeister M, Samy D, Sanders P, Sanderson K, Sandher D, Sargazi N, Saunders M, Saunders N, Savage K, Sawalha S, Schouw M, Scott G, Selzer G, Sepesiova L, Shah S, Shahane S, Shaw G, Shrestha S, Shutt J, Siddiqui N, Sidharthan S, Simons A, Simpson V, Sinclair P, Siney P, Singh J, Singh B, Singh H, Sinha A, Smith C, Smith C, Smith K, Somanchi B, Soufan M, Southgate C, Southgate J, Spearpoint N, Stainer R, Stevens R, Stimler B, Stone A, Suter D, Talbot C, Tareef T, Theivendran K, Thomas B, Thomas W, Thompson A, Thompson J, Thornhill E, Titchener A, Townley M, Tozer T, Truman J, Truss A, Turner R, Van Rensburg L, Venugopal V, Vollans S, Waller L, Walsh A, Waraich A, Wei N, James White W, Wilkinson M, Williams D, Williams P, Williams N, Wilson S, Wood D, Yadu S, Yarashi T, Zeolla J, Zreik NH, and Ollivere B
- Subjects
- Humans, Medical Audit, England, Registries, Data Accuracy, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Elbow standards, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Elbow statistics & numerical data, Elbow Joint surgery
- Abstract
Aims: The aim of this audit was to assess and improve the completeness and accuracy of the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset for arthroplasty of the elbow., Methods: It was performed in two phases. In Phase 1, the completeness was assessed by comparing the NJR elbow dataset with the NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data between April 2012 and April 2020. In order to assess the accuracy of the data, the components of each arthroplasty recorded in the NJR were compared to the type of arthroplasty which was recorded. In Phase 2, a national collaborative audit was undertaken to evaluate the reasons for unmatched data, add missing arthroplasties, and evaluate the reasons for the recording of inaccurate arthroplasties and correct them., Results: Phase 1 identified 5,539 arthroplasties in HES which did not match an arthroplasty on the NJR, and 448 inaccurate arthroplasties from 254 hospitals. Most mismatched procedures (3,960 procedures; 71%) were radial head arthroplasties (RHAs). In Phase 2, 142 NHS hospitals with 3,640 (66%) mismatched and 314 (69%) inaccurate arthroplasties volunteered to assess their records. A large proportion of the unmatched data (3,000 arthroplasties; 82%) were confirmed as being missing from the NJR. The overall rate of completeness of the NJR elbow dataset improved from 63% to 83% following phase 2, and the completeness of total elbow arthroplasty data improved to 93%. Missing RHAs had the biggest impact on the overall completeness, but through the audit the number of RHAs in the NJR nearly doubled and completeness increased from 35% to 70%. The accuracy of data was 94% and improved to 98% after correcting 212 of the 448 inaccurately recorded arthroplasties., Conclusion: The rate of completeness of the NJR total elbow arthroplasty dataset is currently 93% and the accuracy is 98%. This audit identified challenges of data capture with regard to RHAs. Collaboration with a trauma and orthopaedic trainees through the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association improved the completeness and accuracy of the NJR elbow dataset, which will improve the validity of the reports and of the associated research., Competing Interests: Z. Hamoodi reports research fellowship funding from Royal College of Surgeons, National Joint Registry, and The John Charnley Trust, related to this study. A. Sayers is senior statistician on the HQIP/NJR Lot 2 contract. M. R. Whitehouse is the principal investigator for the HQIP/NJR Lot 2 contract to provide statistical support, analysis and associated services to the NJR, related to this study, and reports multiple grants or contracts from the NIHR and Ceramtec, royalties or licenses from Taylor & Frances, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Heraeus, all of which are unrelated to this study. A. C. Watts reports royalties or licenses and patents planned, issued or pendingfrom Adler, consulting fees from Medartis, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Medartis, Stryker, and Arthrex, all of which are unrelated to this study, and is also a member of the editorial boards of the National Joint Registry and The Bone & Joint Journal., (© 2024 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Core Outcome Domains for Elbow Replacement (CODER).
- Author
-
Watts AC, McDaid C, Hewitt C, Bateman M, Evans JP, Higgs D, Hughes B, Luokkala T, Smith C, and Uppal E
- Subjects
- Humans, Activities of Daily Living, Quality of Life, Elbow Joint surgery, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Recovery of Function, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Elbow, Delphi Technique, Patient Satisfaction
- Abstract
Aims: A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement., Methods: A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings., Results: A total of 45 respondents completed the survey. Nine core mandatory domains were identified: 'return to work or normal daily role'; delivery of care was measured in the domains 'patient satisfaction with the outcome of surgery' and 'would the patient have the same operation again'; 'pain'; 'revision'; 'elbow function'; 'independence in activities of daily living'; 'health-related quality of life'; and 'adverse events'. 'Elbow range of motion' was identified as important by consensus but was felt to be less relevant by the PPIE panel. The PPIE panel unanimously stated that pain should be used as the primary outcome domain., Conclusion: This study defined core domains for the clinical outcomes of elbow replacement obtained by consensus from patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Pain may be used as the primary outcome in future studies, where appropriate. Further work is required to define the instruments that should be used., Competing Interests: A. C. Watts reports grants or contracts from NIHR, Zimmer Biomet, TRB Chemedica, and Stryker, royalties or licenses and patents planned, issued or pending from Adler, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Xiros, Medartis, and Arthrex, all of which are unrelated to this study. C. McDaid reports grants or contracts from NIHR HTA and i4i panels, research funding from Hull Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, and is the co-director of NIHR RSS, all of which are unrelated to this study., (© 2024 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Developing a pill to treat sickle cell disease.
- Author
-
Higgs D and Kassouf M
- Subjects
- Animals, Humans, Mice, Drug Discovery, Anemia, Sickle Cell drug therapy, Epigenesis, Genetic drug effects, Fetal Hemoglobin genetics, Antisickling Agents chemistry, Antisickling Agents pharmacology, Antisickling Agents therapeutic use
- Abstract
A newly identified epigenetic modifier increases fetal hemoglobin in preclinical studies.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Survivorship analysis of CAD-CAM total shoulder replacement.
- Author
-
Nayar SK, Butt D, Prinja A, Rudge W, Majed A, Higgs D, and Falworth M
- Abstract
Background: Glenoid bone loss represents a challenge in shoulder arthroplasty and often precludes standard implants. The CAD-CAM total shoulder replacement (TSR) is an option in these cases. This study aimed to assess survivorship and long-term patient outcomes of the CAD-CAM TSR., Methods: Fifty-eight patients that underwent a CAD-CAM TSR by three surgeons at a single tertiary referral centre between 2009 and 2017 were reviewed. The mean follow-up was 70 months (28-130). Data was collected on survivorship, range of movement, Oxford shoulder score (OSS, 0-48), subjective shoulder value (SSV, 0-100%), pain score (0-10), and overall patient satisfaction., Results: CAD-CAM TSR was undertaken as a primary procedure in 28% ( n = 16) for end-stage arthritis with severe glenoid bone loss, and as a revision procedure in 72% ( n = 42). Of the total, 17% ( n = 10) required component revision at a mean of 24 months (4x prosthesis loosening, 3x infection, 3x periprosthetic fracture). Forward elevation improved from 45° ± 27° to 59° ± 29° (P = 0.0056), abduction from 43° ± 29° to 55° ± 26° (P = 0.034) and external rotation from 8° ± 11° to 16° ± 14° (P = 0.031). OSS improved from 15 ± 8 to 29 ± 9 (P = 0.0009), SSV from 18 ± 16 to 62 ± 23 (P < 0.0001), and pain score from 8 ± 2 to 2 ± 2 (P < 0.0001). 88% of patients would undergo the procedure again., Conclusion: CAD-CAM TSR is reserved for complex cases involving severe glenoid bone loss, offering significant improvements in pain and function with overall positive patient satisfaction., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. A systematic review of the treatment of distal humerus fractures in older adults: A comparison of surgical and non-surgical options.
- Author
-
Stoddart MT, Panagopoulos GN, Craig RS, Falworth M, Butt D, Rudge W, Higgs D, and Majed A
- Abstract
Background: Fractures of the distal humerus are a common fragility fracture in older adults. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to produce pooled estimates of the outcomes of treatment using total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), open reduction and locking plate fixation (ORIF), hemiarthroplasty or with conservative management., Methods: A systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE databases was conducted for studies reporting outcomes of intra-articular fractures in older adults. Data extracted included patient-reported outcome measures as well as clinical outcomes including ROM, adverse events and all-cause reoperation rates., Results: Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and included 1838 acute, intra-articular distal humeral fractures. There was no clinically important difference in patient-reported pain and function measured on the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (TEA = 89.3 (SD 20.0), Hemi = 88.4 (SD 10.6), internal fixation = 85.0 (SD 14.7), non-operative = 85.1 (SD 11.0))., Discussion: Each of the treatment modalities studies resulted in a reasonable level of elbow function. The included studies were largely non-comparative and at considerable risk of bias. As elbow replacement surgery becomes centralised in the UK, there is a real need for high-quality comparative research studies to inform practice., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.