Abstract
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 30-day 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.
Level of evidence: III
Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53.
Take home message
Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of elective operations during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 by strict adherence to protocols.
There is no evidence of increased risk of surgical complications due to de-skilling of the surgeon or scrub team, or of contracting COVID-19 in the perioperative period.
Introduction
COVID-19 and its variants caused massive disruption to elective orthopaedic services around the world in 2020 because of the redeployment of staff and equipment, and the repurposing of elective units, to manage the rapid rise in patients who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
There was concern that, on resuming surgery, the morbidity and mortality would be greatly increased based on the report by Lei et al,1 which found that 44% of their patients required ICU admission following surgery with an overall mortality rate of 20.5%. Similarly, the COVIDSurg Collaborative2 reported that there was a 9% mortality rate in patients testing positive seven days before surgery and a 20.4% mortality rate in patients testing positive following surgery. However, reassuringly, the theoretical calculation by Kader et al3 showed that the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection in elective surgery with a false negative preoperative test would be 0.07% (around one in 1,400, using an estimated prevalence of 0.24% in May 2020). Applying the worst-case fatality (20.5%) to this, they calculated that approximately one in 7,000 patients undergoing an elective orthopaedic procedure would die of the disease.
The aim of this study was to determine whether the pathways and protocols that had been introduced were safe and effective, despite the concerns raised by earlier reports.1,2
Methods
A retrospective service evaluation of 2,316 consecutive patients admitted between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 (26 weeks) was undertaken. Data were also obtained on 2,552 procedures performed during the same period in 2019. The most common regions operated on were the shoulder, hip, knee, foot, and ankle. Hand, spine, and other cases were not analyzed in detail. Patient demographic data, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade,4 procedure types, 30-day readmissions, 30-day mortality, and six-week complications were compared with the same period in 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Local protocol for resumption of surgery
Elective surgery was resumed based on the Intercollegiate General Surgery guidance to “consider safety of all healthcare personnel, resource priorities, and infection rates in addition to the outcome of the individual patient”5 and the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) guidance for “re-starting non-urgent trauma and orthopaedic care.”6
The hospital was reconfigured to make the flow of patients in and out of the hospital unidirectional (a ‘green-zone’) with daily screening of all medical staff, wearing of face masks, social distancing, and frequent deep cleaning. Prior to restart, a very stringent preoperative assessment process was agreed upon, starting with the healthiest of our patients and those who needed less complex surgery. Within two weeks, major surgery was offered to lower-risk patients and after six weeks to a higher-risk group discussed at the anaesthetic multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting.
Advice was provided to patients regarding self-isolation and shielding. Additionally, all patients required a negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test three days before surgery (Abbott M2000 (31.5 cycle threshold), Abbott House, UK and SAMBA II, Diagnostics for the Real World, UK). Patients were asked to use a face mask in hospital and relatives were not allowed in. Advice was given to self-isolate for two weeks following surgery. A summary of the pathway is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1
Flowchart showing the COVID-19-safe patient pathway used in our hospital. PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
Measurement of outcome
During the one-week postoperative telephone consultation (an additional welfare check following first lockdown) patients were specifically asked if they had developed COVID-19 symptoms. At a six-week follow-up paper questionnaire (collected only from those undergoing primary or revision shoulder, hip, or knee arthroplasty), patients were asked standard questions, such as whether they had a urine infection or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Data were managed and obtained from the local outcomes database, Bluespier (Clanwilliam Group Digital Division, Ireland) and Lifebox (Definition Health Limited, UK) electronic computer databases and paper-based patient records. Data fields extracted were hospital number, date of birth, surgical procedure, date of procedure, ASA grade, type of anaesthetic, ethnicity, BMI, and outcome. Data regarding 30-day readmission were obtained for all patients who underwent surgery, from the Healthcare Evaluation Data (HED) system, which obtains data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), national inpatient and outpatient data, and Office of National Statistics (ONS) mortality datasets. Due to the three-month HES/HED lag time, 30-day readmission data were only available until 31 October 2020, and therefore 2019 data were analyzed to this timepoint for comparison. The data sources are summarized in Figure 2.
Fig. 2
Flow diagram showing the data sources (and patient numbers) for 2019 and 2020 patient groups.
Ethics
As the data analyzed for this service evaluation were already routinely collected as part of direct clinical care, ethical committee approval for the evaluation was not required. No additional contact was made, or information collected from the patient, next of kin, general practitioner, or any other healthcare professional.
Statistical analysis
Data were tabulated using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, USA) and analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel and Python version 3·9 using the openpyxl, pandas, and matplotlib libraries. independent-samples t-test, and Fisher’s exact test were used. Odds ratio and relative risk were reported as indicated.
Results
During the 2020 study period, an equivalent of 794 all-day operating lists were performed (64 morning, 58 afternoon, and 733 all-day lists) compared to the same period in 2019 during which there was an equivalent of 778.5 all-day lists (79 morning, 74 afternoon, and 702 all-day lists). Although there were 15.5 fewer all-day lists during the 2019 period, more cases were operated upon (2,552 vs 2,316), with a mean of 3.28 (1 to 9) patients per list compared to 2.92 (1 to 9) in 2020. This was because there was a staged return to full operating lists to allow for any effects of deskilling and for increased turnover times due to the new protocols.
Procedure profiles, demographic data, and length of stay
The number of procedures performed is shown in Table I. A breakdown of the operations performed is shown for the knee (Table II), hip (Table III), shoulder (Table IV), and foot and ankle (Table V). The number of procedures performed, age, BMI, and ASA grades are shown for each month from June until December 2020, and the same period in 2019. In 2019, there were 875 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) (2020: 665) and 723 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) (2020: 625), ten revision TKAs (2020: 32), and 68 revision THAs (2020: 24). There were more revision TKA procedures done in 2020 than 2019. The number of shoulder and elbow arthroplasties performed was 23 in both years. Following restart, more general anaesthetics (38.4% vs 31.7%) and fewer spinal anaesthetics (53.7% vs 60.7%) were administered (p < 0.001, Fisher’s exact test). The length of stay for all procedures was 0.5 days less in 2020 compared to 2019 (primary knee arthroplasties: one day less, primary hip arthroplasties: 0.2 days less), but not statistically significant (data not shown).
Table I.
The number of cases performed in 2019 and 2020 classified by body region.
| Region | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Knee | 1,183 | 1,012 |
| Hip | 907 | 752 |
| Foot and ankle | 216 | 227 |
| Shoulder and elbow | 177 | 200 |
| Hand | 0 | 62 |
| Spine | 52 | 55 |
| Other | 17 | 8 |
| Total | 2,552 | 2,316 |
Table II.
Types of knee procedures undertaken between June and December in 2019 and 2020, before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown.
| Procedure type | Jun | July | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
| Knee arthroscopy | ||||||||||||||
| N | 17 | 10 | 22 | 18 | 17 | 31 | 24 | 25 | 14 | 33 | 19 | 20 | 8 | 19 |
| Mean age, yrs (SD) | 45.38 | 41.52 | 44.18 | 40.55 | 49.24 | 40.55 | 43.44 | 51.43 | 47.7 | 52.18 | 51.12 | 42.73 | 40.89 | 40.49 |
| SD | 13.97 | 12.59 | 15.65 | 14.44 | 17.3 | 13.90 | 16.73 | 13.96 | 20.42 | 14.54 | 14.6 | 14.15 | 14.02 | 12.92 |
| Range | 22.95 to 69 | 23.22 to 63.34 | 20.62 to 64.46 | 18.20 to 70.39 | 21.76 to 79.02 | 21.84 to 73.83 | 16.8 to 76.56 | 28.07 to 82.39 | 16.92 to 92.25 | 22.66 to 73.42 | 26.6 to 74.86 | 18.71 to 62.48 | 18.08 to 59.7 | 23.41 to 71.05 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 30.06 | N/A | 28.8 | 25.00 | 30.43 | 27.98 | 31 | 30.87 | 26 | 29.98 | 28 | 27.68 | N/A | 28.33 |
| SD | 5.34 | N/A | 6.97 | 3.41 | 5.68 | 3.71 | 4.9 | 3.55 | N/A | 5.64 | 7.21 | 3.89 | N/A | 4.61 |
| Range | 22 to 39 | 0 | 19 to 43 | 21.41 to 29.47 | 22 to 37 | 21.65 to 33.87 | 25 to 37 | 24.37 to 37.34 | 26 to 26 | 21.63 to 40.94 | 20 to 34 | 20.08 to 34.72 | N/A | 21.59 to 34.33 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 9 | 6 | 12 | 13 | 5 | 16 | 15 | 8 | 9 | 16 | 8 | 12 | 5 | 10 |
| 2 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 13 | 8 | 12 | 2 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 7 |
| 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Primary knee arthroplasty | ||||||||||||||
| N | 61 (8 uni, 2 PFJ) | 5 (2 uni) | 151 (3 PFJs, 9 uni) | 76 (3 PFJs, 9 uni) | 124 (1 PFJ, 12 uni) | 117 (1 PFJ, 8 uni) | 145 (1 PFJ, 11 uni) | 144 (3 PFJs, 18 uni) | 182 (5 PFJs, 16 uni) | 154 (1 PFJ, 19 uni) | 147 (3 PFJs, 15 uni) | 122 (19 uni) | 65 (2 PFJs, 9 uni) | 47 (3 uni) |
| Mean age, yrs | 68.11 | 62.95 | 71.38 | 66.60 | 72.14 | 66.60 | 72.14 | 70.20 | 70.51 | 70.96 | 69.92 | 70.84 | 68.7 | 70.13 |
| SD | 9.89 | 6.30 | 9.2 | 9.66 | 9.15 | 10.04 | 8.87 | 8.65 | 9.43 | 8.98 | 8.66 | 8.85 | 9.48 | 10.80 |
| Range | 42.67 to 85.23 | 56.36 to 73.13 | 42.14 to 93.95 | 41.06 to 84.16 | 44.21 to 88.57 | 46.17 to 88.81 | 47.15 to 92.5 | 41.53 to 89.11 | 40.36 to 89.45 | 45.58 to 94.23 | 50.17 to 92.24 | 52.12 to 91.07 | 50.49 to 86.04 | 44.51 to 96.23 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 31.33 | N/A | 30 | 29.18 | 30.31 | 30.44 | 32.56 | 30.18 | 30.26 | 31.00 | 30.33 | 31.44 | 30.67 | 33.11 |
| SD | 6.37 | N/A | 5.48 | 4.59 | 5.3 | 5.18 | 5.98 | 6.09 | 4.74 | 5.34 | 3.76 | 6.80 | 6.47 | 6.58 |
| Range | 18 to 47 | 0 | 18 to 48 | 21.27 to 39.82 | 19 to 45 | 21.30 to 41.22 | 20 to 47 | 17.49 to 47.38 | 21 to 42 | 19.76 to 43.82 | 24 to 38 | 18.99 to 53.52 | 22 to 47 | 21.94 to 47.67 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 15 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 43 | 2 | 115 | 58 | 96 | 77 | 114 | 96 | 133 | 98 | 97 | 79 | 49 | 31 |
| 3 | 15 | 0 | 31 | 10 | 23 | 33 | 27 | 41 | 32 | 50 | 36 | 38 | 14 | 12 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Revision knee arthroplasty | ||||||||||||||
| N | 0 | 0 | 1 (PFJ) | 4 (1 PFJ) | 2 (uni) | 8 (1 PFJ, 1 uni) | 1 | 5 (1 PFJ, 3 uni) | 2 (2 uni) | 6 (3 PFJs) | 2 (uni) | 4 (1 uni) | 2 (1 PFJ, 1 uni) | 5 (1 PFJ) |
| Mean age, yrs | N/A | N/A | 51.46 | 68.27 | 73.23 | 68.27 | 68.87 | 75.28 | 71.86 | 72.19 | 71.04 | 75.31 | 63.66 | 75.14 |
| SD | N/A | N/A | N/A | 12.62 | 21.88 | 8.79 | N/A | 2.89 | 6.92 | 6.31 | 3.32 | 7.53 | 13.16 | 7.95 |
| Range | N/A | N/A | N/A | 56.24 to 81.86 | 57.76 to 88.7 | 58.47 to 80.98 | N/A | 73.15 to 80.01 | 66.97 to 76.75 | 62.24 to 79.71 | 68.69 to 73.39 | 64.51 to 81.98 | 54.36 to 72.97 | 65.06 to 82.48 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | N/A | N/A | 48 | 28.98 | 32 | 33.95 | N/A | 28.48 | 27 | 32.07 | 23 | 26.54 | 30 | 27.66 |
| SD | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4.99 | N/A | 6.66 | N/A | 2.16 | 5.65 | 8.93 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3.26 |
| Range | N/A | N/A | 48 to 48 | 23.53 to 33.32 | 32 to 32 | 26.42 to 39.04 | N/A | 26.95 to 30 | 23 to 31 | 26.15 to 45.28 | 23 to 23 | 26.54 to 26.54 | 30 to 30 | 25.35 to 29.96 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 4 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other knee procedures, n | 23 | 14 | 26 | 25 | 19 | 23 | 31 | 32 | 24 | 27 | 38 | 19 | 16 | 19 |
| Mean age, yrs | 51.62 | 35.48 | 44.59 | 35.36 | 38.67 | 35.36 | 43.81 | 38.77 | 44.67 | 46.95 | 43.81 | 39.50 | 34.11 | 36.64 |
| SD | 22.61 | 13.78 | 18.29 | 14.24 | 17.11 | 19.04 | 20.01 | 19.60 | 20.38 | 19.42 | 21.79 | 14.30 | 15.38 | 18.62 |
| Range | 20.16 to 81.47 | 18.28 to 70.47 | 19.61 to 89.13 | 16.78 to 81.36 | 16.91 to 68.44 | 17.40 to 82.58 | 16.2 to 84.16 | 16.71 to 90.30 | 16.85 to 84.59 | 16.62 to 87.08 | 18.19 to 89.52 | 21.27 to 76.75 | 20.24 to 75.56 | 17.22 to 84.15 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 28.45 | 25.26 | 27.59 | 24.78 | 29.5 | 26.55 | 32 | 28.17 | 25.75 | 30.06 | 26.5 | 29.29 | 25.5 | 26.15 |
| SD | 5.44 | 4.32 | 4.54 | 4.25 | 7.86 | 5.16 | 2.92 | 6.81 | 5.06 | 4.22 | 5.72 | 5.51 | 6.36 | 3.82 |
| Range | 19 to 41 | 22.2 to 28.31 | 20 to 35 | 19.72 to 29.96 | 20 to 44 | 18 to 35.63 | 30 to 37 | 22.43 to 48.52 | 20 to 32 | 23.55 to 37.51 | 20 to 36 | 23.23 to 40.68 | 21 to 30 | 20.78 to 33.4 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 17 | 11 | 12 | 17 | 20 | 14 | 14 | 17 | 7 | 12 | 13 |
| 2 | 9 | 2 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 10 | 13 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 19 | 11 | 2 | 4 |
| 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
-
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; N/A, not available; PFJ, patellofemoral joint replacement; SD, standard deviation; Uni, unicompartmental.
Table III.
Types of hip procedures undertaken between June and December in 2019 and 2020, before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown.
| Hip procedure | Jun | July | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
| Hip arthroscopy | ||||||||||||||
| N | 2 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mean age, yrs | 42.97 | 35.82 | 36.97 | 36.07 | 36.97 | 36.07 | 32.52 | 33.10 | 25.95 | 32.38 | 32.4 | 16.33 | N/A | 30.11 |
| SD | 7.07 | 16.27 | 11.44 | 10.19 | 24.19 | 20.52 | 7.84 | 12.34 | 5.53 | 15.37 | 12.34 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Range | 37.97 to 47.96 | 20.65 to 58.09 | 23.11 to 50.95 | 20.85 to 48.54 | 16.78 to 85 | 18.94 to 66.97 | 22.65 to 40.25 | 19.48 to 58.76 | 20.27 to 30.9 | 22.06 to 59.26 | 16.08 to 53.6 | 16.33 to 16.33 | N/A | 30.11 to 30.11 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 26 | N/A | 27 | 29.36 | 26.5 | 22.15 | N/A | 31.93 | N/A | 25.45 | 21 | 20.87 | N/A | 28.40 |
| SD | 8.49 | N/A | 4.9 | 9.59 | 4.2 | 4.65 | N/A | 6.89 | N/A | 2.48 | 4.24 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Range | 20 to 32 | N/A | 22 to 36 | 21.98 to 42.31 | 22 to 32 | 18.86 to 25.44 | N/A | 27.06 to 36.8 | N/A | 23.21 to 28.4 | 18 to 24 | 20.87 to 20.87 | N/A | 28.4 to 28.4 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 1 | N/A | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | N/A | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
| Primary hip arthroplasty | ||||||||||||||
| N | 54 | 2 | 137 (2 hip resurfacing) | 99 (2 hip resurfacing) | 108 | 127 | 120 (1 hip resurfacing) | 121 (1 hip resurfacing) | 134 (2 hip surfacing) | 112 (2 hip resurfacing) | 116 | 108 | 60 | 56 |
| Mean age, yrs | 65.38 | 48.31 | 69.05 | 63.75 | 69.05 | 63.75 | 67.7 | 67.88 | 70.71 | 68.22 | 68.93 | 69.20 | 71.11 | 66.72 |
| SD | 15.36 | 10.07 | 11.09 | 11.88 | 11.25 | 10.79 | 12.86 | 12.09 | 11.3 | 12.01 | 12.09 | 12.21 | 10.49 | 10.24 |
| Range | 20.28 to 93.44 | 41.19 to 55.42 | 40.25 to 91.64 | 24.73 to 86.26 | 24.96 to 98.76 | 40.10 to 94.96 | 29.52 to 92.5 | 28.87 to 89.11 | 38.98 to 91.35 | 28.14 to 89.90 | 18.36 to 94.18 | 29.99 to 89.98 | 45.8 to 90.54 | 36.88 to 86.48 |
| Mean BMI kg/m2 | 29.37 | N/A | 28.78 | 26.99 | 27.7 | 28.84 | 29.79 | 29.57 | 27.2 | 28.59 | 27.86 | 28.93 | 27.53 | 28.69 |
| SD | 5.31 | N/A | 5.51 | 5.76 | 5.42 | 5.67 | 5.75 | 6.48 | 4.98 | 5.96 | 4.82 | 6.09 | 6.32 | 4.76 |
| Range | 20 to 44 | 0 | 19 to 45 | 19.37 to 46.55 | 20 to 41 | 16.9 to 42.76 | 18 to 42 | 21.15 to 52.76 | 19 to 42 | 17.82 to 46.4 | 18 to 35 | 19.76 to 49.53 | 17 to 39 | 20.58 to 39.64 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 6 | 1 | 17 | 18 | 13 | 8 | 16 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
| 2 | 36 | 1 | 103 | 72 | 78 | 94 | 89 | 86 | 94 | 65 | 88 | 77 | 41 | 34 |
| 3 | 11 | 0 | 15 | 9 | 16 | 25 | 15 | 26 | 24 | 34 | 19 | 27 | 11 | 14 |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Revision hip arthroplasty | ||||||||||||||
| N | 4 | 0 | 12 | 1 | 18 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Mean age, yrs | 69.39 | N/A | 65.83 | 54.20 | 65.83 | 54.20 | 73.12 | 63.42 | 66.13 | 68.54 | 76.24 | 88.90 | 67.06 | 72.36 |
| SD | 4.18 | N/A | 10.05 | N/A | 15.2 | 3.65 | 6.9 | 6.74 | 12.78 | 13.77 | 12.05 | 7.93 | 5.06 | 13.10 |
| Range | 64.43 to 73.72 | N/A | 43.58 to 79.59 | 54.20 to 54.20 | 26.87 to 88.39 | 69.50 to 77.55 | 64.92 to 89.49 | 56.92 to 75.87 | 37.92 to 81.84 | 52.54 to 82.57 | 58.12 to 92.88 | 79.97 to 95.13 | 63.48 to 70.63 | 55.53 to 86.90 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 32 | N/A | 28.88 | N/A | 28.33 | 26.88 | 30 | 31.98 | 26 | 24.89 | 28 | N/A | N/A | 33.6 |
| SD | 4.32 | N/A | 3.04 | N/A | 5.34 | 3.90 | 5.48 | 7.55 | 6 | 1.57 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 12.08 |
| Range | 28 to 38 | N/A | 25 to 34 | 0 | 22 to 36 | 24.12 to 29.64 | 23 to 37 | 26.64 to 37.32 | 23 to 35 | 23.32 to 26.45 | 28 to 28 | 0 | N/A | 22.64 to 46.55 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 4 | N/A | 8 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 0 | N/A | 3 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Other hip procedures | ||||||||||||||
| N | 6 | 0 | 13 | 7 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 19 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Mean age, yrs | 53.81 | N/A | 61.83 | 48.00 | 61.83 | 48.00 | 54.63 | 52.04 | 61.96 | 57.69 | 55.91 | 62.98 | 60.81 | 56.60 |
| SD | 16.5 | N/A | 17.03 | 19.43 | 14.77 | 19.87 | 16.26 | 16.98 | 18.27 | 16.19 | 20.07 | 17.90 | 3.86 | 23.21 |
| Range | 30.59 to 76.35 | N/A | 26.28 to 86.12 | 25.67 to 76.14 | 35.16 to 86.2 | 16.09 to 82.89 | 24.8 to 81.71 | 28.10 to 79.40 | 21.7 to 80.03 | 24.66 to 76.79 | 23.45 to 80.45 | 36.48 to 84.95 | 56.53 to 64.04 | 25.88 to 84.05 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 29.5 | N/A | 26.44 | 26.23 | 27.5 | 26.80 | 32 | 27.66 | 36 | 26.20 | 34.67 | 28.58 | N/A | 21.98 |
| SD | 6.75 | N/A | 7.02 | 2.84 | 2.12 | 5.28 | N/A | 5.19 | N/A | 3.98 | 9.87 | 4.21 | N/A | 3.90 |
| Range | 23 to 41 | N/A | 20 to 29 | 24.22 to 28.23 | 26 to 29 | 20.87 to 33.67 | 32 to 32 | 21.93 to 32.87 | 36 to 36 | 19.49 to 33.74 | 28 to 46 | 23.53 | N/A | 18.05 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | N/A | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 4 | N/A | 9 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 | N/A | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
-
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; SD, standard deviation.
Table IV.
Types of shoulder and elbow procedures undertaken between June and December in 2019 and 2020, before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown.
| Shoulder and elbow procedure | Jun | July | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
| Primary arthroplasty | ||||||||||||||
| N | 1 (1 elbow arthroplasty) | 0 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 (1 elbow arthroplasty) | 4 | 1 | 6 (1 elbow arthroplasty) | 4 | 5 (1 elbow arthroplasty) | 1 | 4 |
| Mean age, yrs | 57.4 | 0 | 72.5 | 56.27 | 72.5 | 56.27 | 73.96 | 79.13 | 70.11 | 72.28 | 74.77 | 70.28 | 66.97 | 76.05 |
| SD | 0 | 0 | 7.04 | N/A | 9.99 | 7.04 | 6.43 | 9.19 | 0 | 9.23 | 5.02 | 5.94 | N/A | 8.50 |
| Range | 0 | 0 | 60.11 to 81.85 | 56.27 to 56.27 | 59.38 to 80.44 | 61.19 to 73.77 | 63.52 to 80.1 | 66.30 to 88.04 | 0 | 60.75 to 85.01 | 70.18 to 80.75 | 63.00 to 76.28 | N/A | 63.78 to 82.18 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 20 | 0 | 27.86 | 30.78 | 32 | N/A | 29.5 | 24.1 | N/A | N/A | 24 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| SD | 0 | 0 | 5.52 | N/A | 8 | N/A | 3.54 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1.41 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Range | 0 | 0 | 23 to 39 | 30.78 to 30.78 | 24 to 40 | N/A | 27 to 32 | 24.1 to 24.1 | N/A | N/A | 23 to 25 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shoulder and elbow arthroscopy | ||||||||||||||
| N | 7 1 elbow arthroscopy) | 10 (1 elbow arthroscopy) | 15 | 26 | 18 | 12 | 22 (1 elbow arthroscopy) | 22 (2 elbow arthroscopy) | 27 (3 elbow arthroscopy) | 21 (2 elbow arthroscopy) | 19 | 25 (2 elbow arthroscopy) | 11 (1 elbow arthroscopy) | 7 |
| Mean age, yrs | 55.88 | 47.94 | 50.72 | 51.03 | 50.72 | 51.03 | 46.04 | 47.67 | 53.69 | 52.61 | 51.99 | 53.71 | 54.61 | 43.51 |
| SD | 13.61 | 12.83 | 15.23 | 14.88 | 13.81 | 19.80 | 13.49 | 15.76 | 14.03 | 12.04 | 14.11 | 14.57 | 12.25 | 16.16 |
| Range | 30.07 to 71.65 | 30.47 to 64.73 | 19.81 to 71.57 | 17.41 to 73.80 | 23.48 to 77.37 | 18.81 to 77.38 | 24.39 to 70.98 | 18.45 to 76.14 | 24.79 to 83.3 | 25.56 to 72.75 | 23.77 to 74.75 | 19.32 to 78.38 | 25.08 to 71.94 | 19.77 to 62.50 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 27.8 | N/A | 29.82 | 33 | 30.5 | 30.70 | 28.67 | 23.71 | 33.5 | 26.99 | 29 | 25.36 | N/A | N/A |
| SD | 5.22 | N/A | 4.56 | 3.73 | 9.72 | N/A | 5.85 | 3.62 | 9.19 | 0.10 | 0 | 1.77 | N/A | N/A |
| Range | 22 to 36 | N/A | 24 to 40 | 29.55 to 36.73 | 20 to 47 | 30.7 to 30.7 | 20 to 35 | 19.84 to 27.85 | 27 to 40 | 26.92 to 27.06 | 29 to 29 | 24.1 to 26.61 | N/A | N/A |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 13 | 7 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other procedures | ||||||||||||||
| N | 4 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 9 |
| Mean age, yrs | 47.35 | 54.00 | 45.08 | 38.70 | 45.08 | 38.70 | 48.04 | 50.06 | 47.94 | 46.57 | 67.26 | 49.18 | 42.43 | 63.24 |
| SD | 11.01 | 9.76 | 17.82 | 13.49 | 16.28 | 9.69 | 15.38 | 10.31 | 18.04 | 15.19 | 13.83 | 20.38 | 22.86 | 17.99 |
| Range | 35.92 to 57.02 | 42.73 to 59.93 | 28.07 to 63.78 | 24.13 to 57.65 | 21.91 to 67.35 | 51.85 to 75.10 | 24.27 to 67.24 | 36.13 to 68.07 | 27.27 to 73.47 | 23.70 to 65.84 | 52.48 to 79.9 | 24.89 to 77.68 | 17.93 to 67.84 | 33.65 to 89.21 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 31.5 | N/A | 27.5 | 20.14 | 27.5 | 29.92 | 28 | N/A | 28.5 | 22.7 | 25 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| SD | 9.19 | N/A | 6.14 | N/A | 4.95 | N/A | 2.83 | N/A | 4.95 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Range | 25 to 38 | N/A | 23 to 36 | 20.14 to 20.14 | 24 to 31 | 29.92 to 29.92 | 26 to 30 | N/A | 25 to 32 | 22.7 to 22.7 | 25 to 25 | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
-
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; SD, standard deviation.
Table V.
Types of foot and ankle procedures undertaken between June and December in 2019 and 2020, before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown.
| Foot & ankle | Jun | July | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
| N | 14 | 16 | 34 | 39 | 54 | 37 | 20 | 37 | 34 | 45 | 36 | 41 | 24 | 12 |
| Mean age, yrs | 60.71 | 43.07 | 49.52 | 55.39 | 57.5 | 61.00 | 64.79 | 55.58 | 58.9 | 48.83 | 53.63 | 48.32 | 56.82 | 54.32 |
| SD | 21.13 | 13.26 | 21.04 | 17.46 | 16.73 | 14.15 | 13.32 | 16.09 | 18.77 | 16.89 | 18 | 17.11 | 12.47 | 11.72 |
| Range | 26.05 to 88.52 | 17.07 to 59.91 | 17.35 to 84.23 | 17.54 to 84.84 | 19.86 to 85.63 | 22.59 to 88.24 | 36.76 to 83.2 | 16.89 to 80.68 | 21.56 to 91.61 | 16.42 to 81.76 | 16.04 to 79.82 | 17.79 to 82.93 | 38.25 to 86.43 | 36.17 to 80.40 |
| Mean BMI, kg/m2 | 26.5 | N/A | 27.96 | 28.88 | 27.41 | 28.46 | 29.8 | 29.70 | 25.9 | 30.21 | 31.67 | 30.59 | 29 | 28.24 |
| SD | 4.72 | N/A | 5.59 | 7.16 | 4.35 | 5.96 | 5.07 | 6.22 | 3.87 | 6.22 | 4.04 | 8.64 | N/A | 4.66 |
| Range | 20 to 38 | N/A | 18 to 37 | 0 to 35.11 | 21 to 35 | 19 to 40.77 | 23 to 36 | 21.15 to 50.7 | 19 to 31 | 20.12 to 45.45 | 28 to 36 | 19.61 to 50.87 | 29 to 29 | 21.12 to 33.77 |
| ASA grade, n | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 6 | 13 | 17 | 15 | 14 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 22 | 14 | 16 | 7 | 2 |
| 2 | 8 | 3 | 16 | 19 | 31 | 21 | 11 | 27 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 12 | 12 | 4 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
-
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; SD, standard deviation.
The mean patient age in 2020 was 61.6 years (16.1 to 97.4 (SD 16.7)) compared to 64.4 years in 2019 (16.0 to 98.8 (SD 16.1); p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sex distribution with 55.6% of patients being female in 2020 and 57% in 2019. The average BMI in 2020 was 29.3 kg/m2 (16.9 to 53.5 (SD 5.8)) compared to 29.4 in 2019 (17.0 to 48.0 (SD 5.6); p > 0.05, p = 0.710, independent-samples t-test, two-tailed), but ASA grades were the same in 2020: 2.0 (1 to 4 (SD 0.7)) and 2019: 2.0 (1 to 4 (SD 0.6)).
30-day readmissions
Due to the three-month lag, HED/HES data were available for 1,684 cases in 2020, which were therefore compared with 1,917 cases performed in the same time period in 2019. Table VI shows the 30-day readmissions for 2020 (1,684 cases) and 2019 (1,917 cases) with the ICD-10 diagnostic codes in Table VII. These consisted of a mixture of medical and non-medical problems. 127 patients (6.62%) were readmitted within 30 days in 2019 compared to 50 patients (2.97%) in 2020. To keep our unit a ‘Green’ centre, all patients were re-admitted to other hospitals. The patients re-admitted in 2020 were younger (67.08 vs 70.30; p = 0.135, Fisher’s exact test, two-tailed), but there was no difference in sex, ethnicity, or the number of days between surgery and the date of readmission.
Table VI.
The 30-day readmission rate for all patients undergoing surgery during the 2019 and 2020 periods (16 June to 31 October). The 2020 patients were younger, but of similar sex, and re-admissions were at similar times following index procedure. Percentages quoted relate to the total number of complications in the given cohort.
| Variable | 2019 (n = 1,917) | 2020 (n = 1,684) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30-day readmissions 16 June to 31 October (total), n | 127 | 50 | < 0.001* |
| Mean age, yrs | 70.63 | 67.08 | 0.135† |
| SD | 11.20 | 16.33 | |
| Range | 21 to 91 | 18 to 88 | |
| Sex, n; M (%):F | 55 (43):72 | 25 (50):25 | 0.503* |
| Mean days after primary procedure | 11 | 12 | 0.884† |
| SD | 7.97 | 6.92 | |
| Range | 0 to 30 | 1 to 30 | |
| Primary procedure, n (%) | |||
| Others (< 2) | 12 (9) | 11 (21) | 0.044* |
| W401 – Primary total prosthetic arthroplasty of knee joint using cement | 65 (51) | 21 (41) | 0.318* |
| W941 – Primary hybrid prosthetic arthroplasty of hip joint using cemented femoral component | 29 (22) | 15 (29) | 0.338* |
| W381 – Primary total prosthetic arthroplasty of hip joint not using cement | 8 (6) | 4 (7) | 0.742* |
| W581 – Primary resurfacing arthroplasty of joint | 3 (2) | 0 | |
| W943 – Revision of hybrid prosthetic arthroplasty of hip joint using cemented femoral component | 3 (2) | 0 | |
| W371 – Primary total prosthetic arthroplasty of hip joint using cement | 2 (1) | 0 | |
| W403 – Revision of total prosthetic arthroplasty of knee joint using cement | 3 (2) | 0 | |
| W383 – Revision of total prosthetic arthroplasty of hip joint not using cement | 2 (1) | 0 | |
| Ethnicity, n | |||
| 99 – Not known | 64 | 16 | 0.030* |
| A – British | 53 | 25 | 0.400* |
| C – Any other White background | 3 | 2 | 0.620* |
| D – White and Black Caribbean | 0 | 1 | 0.285* |
| H – Indian | 0 | 1 | 0.285* |
| J – Pakistani | 1 | 2 | 0.193* |
| L – Any other Asian background | 1 | 1 | 0.486* |
| M – Caribbean | 1 | 0 | 1.000* |
| N – African | 1 | 1 | 0.486* |
| S – Any other ethnic group | 3 | 0 | 0.560* |
| Z – Not stated | 0 | 1 | 0.285* |
-
*
Fisher's exact test.
-
†
Independent-samples t-test.
-
SD, standard deviation.
Table VII.
The ICD-10 diagnostic codes7 for all patients who were re-admitted within 30 days of their primary procedure during the 2019 and 2020 periods (16 June to 31 October).
| Procedure type | ICD-10 codes | Description | 2019 (total = 127) |
2020 (total = 50) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical | M798 | Other specified soft-tissue disorders | 31 (24%) | 6 (12%) |
| M796, M255 | Pain in limb/joint | 21 (16%) | 7 (14%) | |
| T845, T814, M009 | Infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal joint prosthesis or infection following procedure. Pyogenic arthritis | 8 (6%) | 5 (10%) | |
| I802 | Phlebitis and thrombophlebitis of other deep vessels of lower limbs | 9 (7%) | 1 (2%) | |
| L031 | Cellulitis of other parts of limb | 5 (3%) | 4 (8%) | |
| T810, M250 | Haemorrhage and haematoma complicating a procedure, not elsewhere classified, haemarthrosis | 4 (3%) | 1 (2%) | |
| I828, I269 | Embolism and thrombosis of other specified veins | 2 (1%) | 1 (2%) | |
| T858, T848, T840, I870 | All other surgical | 7 (5%) | 2 (4%) | |
| Medical | J181, R060, J22X | Lobar pneumonia, unspecified, dyspnoea | 5 (3%) | 2 (4%) |
| A415 & A 419 | Sepsis | 1 (7%) | 0 | |
| I635 | Cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis of cerebral arteries | 2 (1%) | 0 | |
| R33X, N390 | Retention of urine, UTI | 3 (2%) | 2 (4%) | |
| I200, R073 | Unstable angina/chest pain | 2 (1%) | 2 (4%) | |
| All other medical | 20 (15%) | 4 (8%) | ||
| Unrelated | All other unrelated | 7 (58%) | 13 (26%) |
-
ICD, International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization; UTI, urinary tract infection.
Six-week complication data
Six-week complication data was collected for all upper limb, hip, and knee arthroplasty patients, consisting of 1,361 patients in 2020 and 1,699 patients in 2019. They either ‘ticked’ the various options shown in Table VIII or filled in the free text (Table IX).
Table VIII.
‘Tick-box’ complications six weeks following surgery, collected from patients who underwent hip, knee, or upper limb primary or revision arthroplasty. Complications that had been entered into a database are listed below. Some patients reported more than one complication. Fisher’s exact test confirms significantly fewer six-week complications in 2020 compared to 2019.
| Total surgical procedures | 2019 | Complications, n/1,699 (%) | 2020 | Complications, n/1,361 (%) | p-value* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients reporting one or more complications, n | 278 | 129 | < 0.001 | ||
| Deep vein thrombosis | 15 | 5.40 (0.88) | 5 | 1.80 (0.36) | 0.112 |
| Diarrhoea and vomiting | 17 | 6.12 (1.00) | 9 | 3.24 (0.66) | 0.330 |
| Dislocation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.36 (0.04) | 0.445 |
| Heart attack | 1 | 0.36 (0.06) | 0 | 0 | 1.000 |
| Joint infection | 5 | 1.8 (0.30) | 5 | 1.80 (0.37) | 0.759 |
| Nerve palsy | 1 | 0.36 (0.06) | 0 | 0 | 1.000 |
| Other surgery to joint | 5 | 1.8 (0.30) | 2 | 0.72 (0.15) | 0.472 |
| Periprosthetic fracture | 1 | 0.36 (0.04) | 2 | 0.72 (0.15) | 0.588 |
| Pneumonia | 10 | 3.60 (0.59) | 0 | 0 | 0.003 |
| Pulmonary embolism | 1 | 0.36 (0.04) | 2 | 0.72 (0.15) | 0.588 |
| Stroke | 2 | 0.72 (0.12) | 0 | 0 | 0.506 |
| Urine infection | 49 | 17.63 (2.30) | 17 | 6.12 (1.25) | 0.002 |
| Wound infections | 37 | 13.31 (2.18) | 24 | 8.63 (1.86) | 0.438 |
| ‘Free-text’ complications | 167 | 85 | < 0.001 |
-
*
Fisher's exact test.
Table IX.
“Free-text” patient-reported complications (i.e. complications entered into a free-text box) six weeks following surgery. There was no significant difference between the 2019 and 2020 periods.
| Complication type | Category | 2019 | Complications, n (%) | 2020 | Complications, n (%) | p-value* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients who underwent shoulder, hip, or knee arthroplasty, n | 1,699 | 1,361 | ||||
| Patients reporting one or more complications, n | 278 | 129 | ||||
| Grouped ‘free-text’ complications, n | 167 | 85 | 0.001 | |||
| Surgery-related | Pain, stiffness, redness, swelling, numbness, calf swelling (no DVT); of limited surgical significance. | 68 | 40.72 (4.00) | 36 | 42.35 (2.65) | 0.044 |
| Wound healing problems | 21 | 12.57 (1.23) | 10 | 11.76 (0.73) | 0.204 | |
| Cellulitis | 10 | 5.99 (0.59) | 2 | 2.35 (0.15) | 0.078 | |
| Infection | 8 | 4.79 (0.47) | 5 | 5.88 (0.37) | 0.783 | |
| Bleeding | 4 | 2.40 (0.24) | 1 | 1.18 (0.07) | 0.390 | |
| Stiffness needing MUA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.18 (0.07) | 0.445 | |
| Medical | Chest infection | 3 | 1.80 (1.77) | 0 | 0 | 0.259 |
| DVT | 3 | 1.80 (1.77) | 0 | 0 | 0.259 | |
| Cardiovascular (MI/arrhythmia) | 1 | 0.60 (0.06) | 1 | 1.18 (0.07) | 1.000 | |
| Urinary infection | 2 | 1.20 (0.12) | 3 | 3.53 (0.22) | 0.661 | |
| Nausea and vomiting | 2 | 1.20 (0.12) | 0 | 0 | 0.506 | |
| Constipation | 1 | 0.60 (0.06) | 3 | 3.53 (0.22) | 0.329 | |
| Others | Other (e.g. anaemia, analgesia sensitivity, mouth ulcers) | 28 | 16.77 (1.65) | 18 | 21.18 (1.32) | 0.550 |
| Unrelated to surgery and unknown | 10 | 5.99 (0.59) | 3 | 3.53 (0.22) | 0.163 | |
| Falls or other trauma | 5 | 2.99 (0.29) | 2 | 2.35 (0.15) | 0.472 | |
| General malaise | 1 | 0.60 (0.06) | 0 | 0 | 1.000 |
-
*
Fisher's exact test.
-
DVT, deep vein thrombosis; MI, myocardial infarction; MUA, manipulation under anaesthesia.
In 2019, 278 patients (10.9%) reported a complication compared to 129 patients (5.6%) in 2020. The fact that there were significantly fewer complications in 2020 than 2019 (p < 0.001, independent-samples t-test, two-tailed), suggested that the protocols that were put in place were effective and that the return to surgery had been safe. DVT (free-text and not tick box) and pneumonia were significantly lower in 2020 compared to 2019 (p < 0.05).
Mortality rates
Data regarding 30-day mortality were available for all patients. There were no deaths reported in the 2020 group at 30 days as opposed to 14 deaths (0.5%) following surgery in the 2019 cohort, three of which (0.1%) occurred within 30 days.
Preoperative COVID-19-related cancellations
A total of 15 patients out of the 2,316 in the 2020 cohort (0.65%) were cancelled due to either having been in close contact with a PCR-confirmed case of COVID-19, having a positive PCR test, or having symptoms (Table X). Nine patients had a positive COVID-19 PCR test: four were re-tested negative prior to surgery, two were not contactable, one ‘had a false positive test’ and subsequently sought private treatment, and two had no further tests. Nine patients tested positive on preoperative testing, out of a total of 2,316 patient samples tested (99.611%).
Table X
Summary of the 15 patients who were cancelled before surgery because they were either in close contact with another person who tested positive for COVID-19, tested positive themselves, or had symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 infection.
| Cancellation reason | Procedure | Cancellation number of days before surgery |
|---|---|---|
| Close contact with another person who has a positive test for COVID-19 | ||
| Ankle arthroscopy | 7 | |
| Revision total knee arthroplasty | 1 | |
| Total hip arthroplasty | 6 | |
| Total hip arthroplasty | 1 | |
| Total knee arthroplasty | 2 | |
| Positive test for COVID-19 | ||
| ACL reconstruction | 3 | |
| Excision of Morton’s neuroma | 7 | |
| Hammer toe correction | 1 | |
| Total hip arthroplasty | 7 | |
| Total hip arthroplasty | 2 | |
| Total hip arthroplasty | 2 | |
| Total hip arthroplasty | 0 | |
| Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty | 7 | |
| Unknown | 3 | |
| COVID-19 symptoms | Hip injection | 4 |
-
ACL, anterior cruciate ligament.
If all nine positive reported COVID-19 tests were false, the specificity of the test would be 99.6%. It is unlikely that all tests were false positives because the virus was circulating in the community at the time of the study. This means that the specificity of the PCR test used in this study is over 99.6%.
COVID-19 infection after surgery
Only one patient in the 2020 cohort contracted COVID-19 infection following an ankle arthroscopy with debridement and microfracture. This was a 38-year-old patient with a history of asthma and bronchitis whose surgery had initially been postponed due to a flu-like illness (COVID-19 test negative). The patient was treated with antibiotics and surgery was rescheduled for five weeks later. A repeat test was negative four days beforehand and the arthroscopic procedure was uneventful, with the patient being discharged on the day of surgery. The patient then stayed overnight with a friend who was self-isolating but developed flu-like symptoms five days later. A test two days later confirmed COVID-19 infection and during a telephone consultation 12 days after the operation, the patient reported that the respiratory symptoms were improving. No members of the clinical team had tested positive for COVID-19 two weeks before or after the date of the patient’s surgery suggesting that infection was from outside the hospital.
Discussion
This study, performed in a high-volume elective orthopaedic centre, is reporting on the greatest number of patients who underwent planned surgery in the UK (during the pandemic) to date. From a total of 2,316 patients only one (0.04%) developed COVID-19 postoperatively. In contrast, a nationwide study reported an almost 60% pre-hospital or hospital-acquired COVID-19 infection rate following admission for a fractured neck of femur.8 In this series, COVID-19 infection diagnosed within 30 days of admission was associated with a three-fold increase in mortality. These patients were from a different demographic to those in our current series and had undergone emergency surgery during the earlier part of the pandemic, when protocols and processes were less well developed.
The 30-day mortality rate and the total number of complications was less in 2020 than in the previous year. Additionally, chest infection and DVT were reduced in the 2020 group. While the procedure profiles had some differences, the 2020 patient group were on average three years younger, despite being otherwise matched for BMI, ASA grade, and sex. The 2020 patients underwent a more rigorous preoperative work-up and there were fewer patients on each operating list at the start, leading to reduced time pressure during operating. Better access to inpatient physiotherapy and possibly reduced length of stay may explain our observations. On the other hand, patient anxiety or fear of catching COVID-19 by attending hospital to seek advice may have reduced presentations to hospitals following initial discharge.
The return to full surgical activity was not as slow as had been predicted.9 Surgery initially resumed with soft-tissue procedures in healthy patients who had urgent clinical need, and progressed rapidly to undertaking arthroplasty procedures, returning to near full activity, as compared to 2019, within six weeks of resumption.
Theatre lists, for the first two months (June/July 2020), were intentionally underused to allow time for safe airway management (due to the aerosol-generating procedure risk), and to allow for surgeon and team ‘re-learning’ due to the deskilling which may have occurred during the three-month period of disuse.10 Additionally, there were difficulties in re-filling lists if patients were cancelled at short notice due to not completing the two-week isolation period before surgery, or having a positive PCR test shortly before surgery. No additional operative training was given to surgeons or staff, but lectures were provided regarding COVID-19, transmission, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and social distancing. Extra precautions were put in place to protect patients and staff from COVID-19 infection. Initially, this included the option of surgeons operating in pairs, the standardized use of PPE, and protocols for anaesthetic induction and extubating. With these precautions in place, no increase in complications was observed during the study period. The authors do, however, appreciate that the extent of any de-skilling may not become apparent until much later.
There were no 30-day deaths in the 2020 cohort, which is different to the results from Lei et al1 who found a 20% mortality rate in 34 patients who developed COVID-19-related pneumonia while undergoing elective (orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic procedures) surgery between January and February 2020. In their analysis, old age, comorbidities, operating time, and complexity of operation were related to poor outcome.1 In our pathway, patients were advised to self-isolate following surgery, patients in the 2020 group were slightly younger, and the ASA grades were similar to patients in the 2019 group.
We believe that the low complications and readmissions were achieved by the strict adherence to pathways aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection before, during, and after surgery. Only 15 patients (0.65%) had their procedure cancelled showing that the screening protocol, preoperative assessment, and triage processes were effective.
The high specificity of our test, like the 99.92% reported by The Office for National Statistics, is due to a combination of factors including self-isolation of patients before surgery, well-trained staff taking and processing samples, and the use of a lower RT-PCR cycle threshold of 31.11
Only one patient in the current series developed COVID-19 infection, in line with the theoretical calculated rate of 1:1,400 at a time of relatively low community transmission. However, staff risk, and mitigating factors such as self-isolation, PCR testing, and preoperative COVID-19 symptom screening, were not considered in this earlier publication.3 The risk in the current series of 1:2,316 was lower than that published by Myles et al,12 who reported an incidence of 1:833 in a cohort of 4,965 patients following the return to surgery in Australia during the second wave.
Limitations of the study include the accuracy of the data, for example the use of the ASA classification, which can be subjective, as well as the self-reporting of complications by patients, although these were subsequently validated by a telephone call and review of medical records (except for cases of urinary tract infection and diarrhoea and vomiting). The strengths of the study include a retrospective review of contemporaneously recorded data, the validation of patient-reported complications during a separate telephone consultation by a specially trained nurse, and the large number of patients.
The results of this study demonstrate that it was safe to restart elective orthopaedic surgery after the first lockdown, with no increased risk of surgical complications due to deskilling of the surgeon or scrub team, or of contracting COVID-19 in the perioperative period. This means that it should also be possible to safely restart elective work after the current wave, although there is no room for complacency and strict adherence to the pathways and protocols remains essential.
References
1. Lei S , Jiang F , Su W , et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing surgeries during the incubation period of covid-19 infection . EClinicalMedicine . 2020 ; 21 : 100331 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
2. COVIDSurg Collaborative . Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study . Lancet . 2020 ; 396 ( 10243 ): 27 – 38 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
3. Kader N , Clement ND , Patel VR , Caplan N , Banaszkiewicz P , Kader D . The theoretical mortality risk of an asymptomatic patient with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test developing COVID-19 following elective orthopaedic surgery . Bone Joint J . 2020 ; 102-B ( 9 ): 1256 – 1260 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Saklad M . Grading of patients for surgical procedures . Anesthesiol . ; 2 ( 5 ): 281 – 284 . n.d . Google Scholar
5. No authors listed . 3rd Update Intercollegiate Surgery Guidance on COVID-19 . 2020 . https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/rcs/coronavirus/3rd-update-intercollegiate-general-surgery-guidance-on-covid19-30-may.pdf ( date last accessed 22 October 2021 ). Google Scholar
6. British Orthopaedic Association . Re-starting non-urgent trauma and orthopaedic care: Full guidance. v1.1 . 2020 . https://www.boa.ac.uk/resources/boa-guidance-for-restart---full-doc---final2-pdf.html ( date last accessed 22 October 2021 ). Google Scholar
7. World Health Organisation . ICD-10 Version:2016 . https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en date last accessed( 22 October 2021 ). Google Scholar
8. Hall AJ , Clement ND , MacLullich AMJ , White TO , Duckworth AD . IMPACT-Scot 2 report on COVID-19 in hip fracture patients . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 5 ): 888 – 897 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. O’Connor CM , Anoushiravani AA , DiCaprio MR , Healy WL , Iorio R . Economic Recovery After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Resuming Elective Orthopedic Surgery and Total Joint Arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2020 ; 35 : S32 – S36 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
10. Hughes R , Hallstrom B , Schemanske C , Howard PW , Wilton T . Returning to operating following COVID-19 shutdown: what can human factors tell us? Bone Joint J . 2020 ; 102-B ( 10 ): 1277 – 1278 : 1277 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
11. Steel K , Davies B . COVID-19 Infection Survey: Methods and Further Information . UK : Office for National Statistics . 26/03/2119 . Google Scholar
12. Myles PS , Wallace S , Story DA , et al. COVID-19 risk in elective surgery during a second wave: A prospective cohort study . ANZ J Surg . 2021 ; 91 ( 1–2 ): 22 – 26 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
Author contributions
V. Asopa: Investigation, Writing – original draft.
A. Sagi: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft.
H. Bishi: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
F. Getachew: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
I. Afzal: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Y. Vyrides: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
D. Sochart: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
V. Patel: Methodology, Writing – original draft.
D. Kader: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft.
Funding statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
ICMJE COI statement
V. Patel reports payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus from DJO Global, and expenses from Arthrex, DJO Global, and Medacta, all unrelated to the study.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the SWLEOC Research Department for their dedication and hard work, and Mary Richardson, the Director of SWLEOC, for her support.
Open access funding
The authors confirm that the open access funding for this study was provided by the South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre.
Follow V. Asopa @vipin_asopa
Follow D. Kader @DeiaryKader
© 2022 Author(s) et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
