Habeeb Bishi
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Habeeb Bishi has a total of 26 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Chao Wang
South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom General Hospital, Epsom, Surrey, UK
2 shared publicationsVipin Asopa
South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom General Hospital, Epsom, Surrey, UK
2 shared publications- Amit Sagi
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Barzilai Medical Center, Ashkelon 7830604, Israel
1 shared publication - Amogh Patil
Department of Orthopaedics, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, L9 7AL Liverpool, UK
1 shared publication - Charmilie Chandrakumar
Department of Orthopaedics, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, SE5 9RS London, UK
1 shared publication David H Sochart
South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom General Hospital, Epsom, Surrey, UK
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 5 February 2026
- Published by IMR Press in British Journal of Hospital Medicine
- Vol. 87 (2) , 50723
Less than Full Time Training—A Survey of Prospective Trauma&Orthopaedic Surgeons in the UK—Understanding Prospective Trauma&Orthopaedic Surgeons’ Attitudes Towards Less than Full Time Training
Aims/Background: This study explores the attitudes and barriers faced by UK orthopaedic trainees regarding less than full time (LTFT) training. LTFT training has become more accessible since 2022, yet surgical trainees have been slower to adopt it compared to other specialties. Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was carried out via a 16-item online questionnaire which was distributed to aspiring orthopaedic surgeons registering for an orthopaedic themed teaching programme. Results: 216 respondents met the inclusion criteria. The study found that 42% of respondents would consider LTFT training, with higher interest among female trainees. Key barriers identified included extended training duration, financial concerns, potential decline in surgical skills, and negative perceptions from colleagues. Conclusion: The research highlights the need for clearer guidance, better support, and a cultural shift within orthopaedic departments to address these barriers. Initiating education and awareness programmes for senior staff and providing comprehensive information to trainees are essential steps to fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for LTFT training in orthopaedic surgery.
- 5 February 2026
- Published by IMR Press in British Journal of Hospital Medicine
- Vol. 87 (2) , 50723
Open AccessLess than Full Time Training—A Survey of Prospective Trauma&Orthopaedic Surgeons in the UK—Understanding Prospective Trauma&Orthopaedic Surgeons’ Attitudes Towards Less than Full Time Training
Aims/Background: This study explores the attitudes and barriers faced by UK orthopaedic trainees regarding less than full time (LTFT) training. LTFT training has become more accessible since 2022, yet surgical trainees have been slower to adopt it compared to other specialties. Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was carried out via a 16-item online questionnaire which was distributed to aspiring orthopaedic surgeons registering for an orthopaedic themed teaching programme. Results: 216 respondents met the inclusion criteria. The study found that 42% of respondents would consider LTFT training, with higher interest among female trainees. Key barriers identified included extended training duration, financial concerns, potential decline in surgical skills, and negative perceptions from colleagues. Conclusion: The research highlights the need for clearer guidance, better support, and a cultural shift within orthopaedic departments to address these barriers. Initiating education and awareness programmes for senior staff and providing comprehensive information to trainees are essential steps to fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for LTFT training in orthopaedic surgery.
- Open Access
- 11 December 2022
- Published by Springer Nature in Cureus
- Vol. 14 (12) , e32399
A Retrospective Comparative Study of Long-Term Outcomes Following Cervical Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
The traditional treatment for patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy caused by degenerative disc disease was anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, a documented complication of ACDF is adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). An alternative that was developed was total disc replacement (TDR). The aim of this study was to determine and compare the short- and medium-to-long-term outcomes after a TDR or ACDF. A retrospective review of 154 patients who had single and two-level ACDFs and 90 TDRs performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017 was conducted. Parameters for comparisons include both radiological evaluation and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) at six weeks, one year, and two years postoperatively. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain are used to evaluate pain, function, patient satisfaction, and overall clinical success. TDR and ACDF showed significant improvement in NDI and VAS when compared to pre- and post-operatively at both six weeks (p<0.05 & P=0.032, respectively) and two years (p<0.05 & 0=0.026, respectively). TDR vs. ACDF showed no significant difference (p<0.05). VAS scores after ACDF showed improvement from 13.41 to 3.94 at two years (p<0.001). TDR showed similar scores of 12.5 to 3.55 (p<0.001). The radiological fusion rate at 12 or 24 months showed no significant difference between the two groups. There were two cases that required re-operation after ACDF (1.2%), and two that required TDR (2.2%). Both TDR and ACDF lead to clinically significant improvements in pain and function scores. We did not find a statistically significant difference in NDI and VAS in the neck and arm. The results are in agreement with others' assessments of these two treatment modalities. Our conclusions supplement the literature about these operative options for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and are a useful addition to the armamentarium in the assessment of patients with degenerative pathology of the c-spine.
- 11 December 2022
- Published by Springer Nature in Cureus
- Vol. 14 (12) , e32399
Open AccessA Retrospective Comparative Study of Long-Term Outcomes Following Cervical Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
The traditional treatment for patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy caused by degenerative disc disease was anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, a documented complication of ACDF is adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). An alternative that was developed was total disc replacement (TDR). The aim of this study was to determine and compare the short- and medium-to-long-term outcomes after a TDR or ACDF. A retrospective review of 154 patients who had single and two-level ACDFs and 90 TDRs performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017 was conducted. Parameters for comparisons include both radiological evaluation and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) at six weeks, one year, and two years postoperatively. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain are used to evaluate pain, function, patient satisfaction, and overall clinical success. TDR and ACDF showed significant improvement in NDI and VAS when compared to pre- and post-operatively at both six weeks (p<0.05 & P=0.032, respectively) and two years (p<0.05 & 0=0.026, respectively). TDR vs. ACDF showed no significant difference (p<0.05). VAS scores after ACDF showed improvement from 13.41 to 3.94 at two years (p<0.001). TDR showed similar scores of 12.5 to 3.55 (p<0.001). The radiological fusion rate at 12 or 24 months showed no significant difference between the two groups. There were two cases that required re-operation after ACDF (1.2%), and two that required TDR (2.2%). Both TDR and ACDF lead to clinically significant improvements in pain and function scores. We did not find a statistically significant difference in NDI and VAS in the neck and arm. The results are in agreement with others' assessments of these two treatment modalities. Our conclusions supplement the literature about these operative options for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and are a useful addition to the armamentarium in the assessment of patients with degenerative pathology of the c-spine.
- Open Access
- 11 January 2022
- Published by Bioscientifica in EFORT Open Reviews
- Vol. 7 (1) , 70-83
Comparison of the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating methods for planning primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
There are advocates of both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) templating methods for planning total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant size prediction when using 2D and 3D templating methods for total hip arthroplasty, as well as to compare the inter- and intra-observer reliability in order to determine whether currently available methods are sufficiently reliable and reproducible. Medline, EMBASE and PubMed were searched to identify studies that compared the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating for total hip replacement. Results were screened using the PRISMA flowchart and included studies were assessed for their level of evidence using the Oxford CEBM criteria. Non-randomized trials were critically appraised using the MINORS tool, whilst randomized trials were assessed using the CASP RCT checklist. A series of meta-analyses of the data for accuracy were also conducted. Ten studies reported that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of templating for total hip replacement. Six studies compared 3D templating with 2D templating, all of which concluded that 3D templating was more accurate, with three finding a statistically significant difference. The meta-analyses showed that 3D CT templating is the most accurate method. This review supports the hypothesis that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of preoperative planning, which is more accurate than 2D templating for predicting implant size. However, further research is needed to ascertain the significance of this improved accuracy and whether it will yield any clinical benefit.
- 11 January 2022
- Published by Bioscientifica in EFORT Open Reviews
- Vol. 7 (1) , 70-83
Open AccessComparison of the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating methods for planning primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
There are advocates of both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) templating methods for planning total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant size prediction when using 2D and 3D templating methods for total hip arthroplasty, as well as to compare the inter- and intra-observer reliability in order to determine whether currently available methods are sufficiently reliable and reproducible. Medline, EMBASE and PubMed were searched to identify studies that compared the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating for total hip replacement. Results were screened using the PRISMA flowchart and included studies were assessed for their level of evidence using the Oxford CEBM criteria. Non-randomized trials were critically appraised using the MINORS tool, whilst randomized trials were assessed using the CASP RCT checklist. A series of meta-analyses of the data for accuracy were also conducted. Ten studies reported that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of templating for total hip replacement. Six studies compared 3D templating with 2D templating, all of which concluded that 3D templating was more accurate, with three finding a statistically significant difference. The meta-analyses showed that 3D CT templating is the most accurate method. This review supports the hypothesis that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of preoperative planning, which is more accurate than 2D templating for predicting implant size. However, further research is needed to ascertain the significance of this improved accuracy and whether it will yield any clinical benefit.
- Open Access
- 1 January 2022
- Published by British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery in Bone & Joint Open
- Vol. 3 (1) , 42-53
The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic services following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic A REVIEW OF 2,316 CONSECUTIVE CASES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECOVERY FOLLOWING FURTHER WAVES
Aims There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery.
- 1 January 2022
- Published by British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery in Bone & Joint Open
- Vol. 3 (1) , 42-53
Open AccessThe safe resumption of elective orthopaedic services following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic A REVIEW OF 2,316 CONSECUTIVE CASES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECOVERY FOLLOWING FURTHER WAVES
Aims There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery.
- Open Access
- 1 November 2021
- Published by Bioscientifica in EFORT Open Reviews
- Vol. 6 (11) , 1020-1039
The accuracy and reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction in uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and the inter- and intra-observer reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction for the planning of cemented or uncemented THA. This study was registered in the NIHR PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020216649) and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of electronic databases in March 2021 found 29 papers overall. The quality of evidence was assessed using the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist and the CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted, and the accuracy was presented as proportions and the inter- and intra-observer reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Accuracy within one prosthesis size (±1) for cemented stems was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–0.95), cemented cups 0.78 (95% CI 0.67–0.89), uncemented stems 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.82) and uncemented cups 0.73 (95% CI 0.67–0.79) (test of group differences: p = 0.010). Inter-observer reliability (ICC) for uncemented cups was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85–0.91), uncemented stems 0.86 (95% CI 0.81–0.91), cemented stems 0.69 (95% CI 0.54–0.84) and cemented cups 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.81) (test of group differences: p = 0.004). Due to lack of data, intra-observer reliability (ICC) could only be calculated for uncemented prostheses, which for the stems was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88–0.92) and for the cups was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83–0.90) (test of group differences: p = 0.124). The accuracy of preoperative digital templating is greater for cemented prostheses, but the inter-observer reliability is greater for uncemented prostheses. The intra-observer reliability showed a high level of agreement for uncemented prostheses. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1020-1039. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210048
- 1 November 2021
- Published by Bioscientifica in EFORT Open Reviews
- Vol. 6 (11) , 1020-1039
Open AccessThe accuracy and reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction in uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and the inter- and intra-observer reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction for the planning of cemented or uncemented THA. This study was registered in the NIHR PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020216649) and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of electronic databases in March 2021 found 29 papers overall. The quality of evidence was assessed using the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist and the CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted, and the accuracy was presented as proportions and the inter- and intra-observer reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Accuracy within one prosthesis size (±1) for cemented stems was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–0.95), cemented cups 0.78 (95% CI 0.67–0.89), uncemented stems 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.82) and uncemented cups 0.73 (95% CI 0.67–0.79) (test of group differences: p = 0.010). Inter-observer reliability (ICC) for uncemented cups was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85–0.91), uncemented stems 0.86 (95% CI 0.81–0.91), cemented stems 0.69 (95% CI 0.54–0.84) and cemented cups 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.81) (test of group differences: p = 0.004). Due to lack of data, intra-observer reliability (ICC) could only be calculated for uncemented prostheses, which for the stems was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88–0.92) and for the cups was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83–0.90) (test of group differences: p = 0.124). The accuracy of preoperative digital templating is greater for cemented prostheses, but the inter-observer reliability is greater for uncemented prostheses. The intra-observer reliability showed a high level of agreement for uncemented prostheses. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1020-1039. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210048