Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic literature search of all papers pertaining to VFCs, using the search engines PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were carried out and screened by two authors, with final study eligibility confirmed by the senior author.Background
Methods
It is unusual, if not unique, for three major research papers concerned with the management of the fractured neck of femur (FNOF) to be published in a short period of time, each describing large prospective randomized clinical trials. These studies were conducted in up to 17 countries worldwide, involving up to 80 surgical centers and include large numbers of patients (up to 2,900) with FNOF. Each article investigated common clinical dilemmas; the first paper comparing total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for FNOF, the second as to whether ‘fast track’ care offers improved clinical outcomes and the third, compares sliding hip with multiple cancellous hip screws. Each paper has been deemed of sufficient quality and importance to warrant publication in The Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine. Although ‘premier’ journals, they only occationally contain orthopaedic studies and thus may not be routinely read by the busy orthopaedic/surgical clinician of any grade. It is therefore our intention with this present article to accurately summarize and combine the results of all three papers, presenting, in our opinion, the most important clinically relevant facts. Cite this article:
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a major orthopaedic
intervention. The length of a patient's stay has been progressively
reduced with the introduction of enhanced recovery protocols: day-case
surgery has become the ultimate challenge. This narrative review shows the potential limitations of day-case
TKA. These constraints may be social, linked to patient’s comorbidities,
or due to surgery-related adverse events (e.g. pain, post-operative
nausea and vomiting, etc.). Using patient stratification, tailored surgical techniques and
multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia, day-case TKA might be achievable
in a limited group of patients. The younger, male patient without
comorbidities and with an excellent social network around him might
be a candidate. Demographic changes, effective recovery programmes and less invasive
surgical techniques such as unicondylar knee arthroplasty, may increase
the size of the group of potential day-case patients. The cost reduction achieved by day-case TKA needs to be balanced
against any increase in morbidity and mortality and the cost of
advanced follow-up at a distance with new technology. These factors
need to be evaluated before adopting this ultimate ‘fast-track’
approach. Cite this article:
