Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640

Aims. Orthopaedic surgeries are complex, frequently performed procedures associated with significant haemorrhage and perioperative blood transfusion. Given refinements in surgical techniques and changes to transfusion practices, we aim to describe contemporary transfusion practices in orthopaedic surgery in order to inform perioperative planning and blood banking requirements. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery at four Canadian hospitals between 2014 and 2016. We studied all patients admitted to hospital for nonarthroscopic joint surgeries, amputations, and fracture surgeries. For each surgery and surgical subgroup, we characterized the proportion of patients who received red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, the mean/median number of RBC units transfused, and exposure to platelets and plasma. Results. Of the 14,584 included patients, the most commonly performed surgeries were knee arthroplasty (24.8%), hip arthroplasty (24.6%), and hip fracture surgery (17.4%). A total of 10.3% of patients received RBC transfusion; the proportion of patients receiving RBC transfusions varied widely based on the surgical subgroup (0.0% to 33.1%). Primary knee arthroplasty and hip arthroplasty, the two most common surgeries, were associated with in-hospital transfusion frequencies of 2.8% and 4.5%, respectively. RBC transfusion occurred in 25.0% of hip fracture surgeries, accounting for the greatest total number of RBC units transfused in our cohort (38.0% of all transfused RBC units). Platelet and plasma transfusions were uncommon. Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgeries were associated with variable rates of transfusion. The rate of RBC transfusion is highly dependent on the surgery type. Identifying surgeries with the highest transfusion rates, and further evaluation of factors that contribute to transfusion in identified at-risk populations, can serve to inform perioperative planning and blood bank requirements, and facilitate pre-emptive transfusion mitigation strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):850–857

Aims. The use of fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgery creates risk of radiation exposure to surgeons. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can help mitigate this. The primary aim of this study was to assess if current radiation protection in orthopaedic trauma is safe. The secondary aims were to describe normative data of radiation exposure during common orthopaedic procedures, evaluate ways to improve any deficits in protection, and validate the use of electronic personal dosimeters (EPDs) in assessing radiation dose in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Radiation exposure to surgeons during common orthopaedic trauma operations was prospectively assessed using EPDs and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Normative data for each operation type were calculated and compared to recommended guidelines. Results. Current PPE appears to mitigate more than 90% of ionizing radiation in orthopaedic fluoroscopic procedures. There is a higher exposure to the inner thigh during seated procedures. EPDs provided results for individual procedures. Conclusion. PPE currently used by surgeons in orthopaedic trauma theatre adequately reduces radiation exposure to below recommended levels. Normative data per trauma case show specific anatomical areas of higher exposure, which may benefit from enhanced radiation protection. EPDs can be used to assess real-time radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery. There may be a role in future medical wearables for orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):907–912

Aims. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Systematic reviews of RCTs testing orthopaedic procedures published in 2022 were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A random sample of 100 systematic reviews was selected, and all included RCTs were retrieved. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews must have tested an orthopaedic procedure as the primary intervention, included at least one study identified as a RCT, been published in 2022 in English, and included human clinical trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 Tool was used to assess random sequence generation as ‘adequate’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘no information’; we then calculated the proportion of trials in each category. We also collected data to test the association between these categories and characteristics of the RCTs and systematic reviews. Results. We included 917 unique RCTs. We found that 374 RCTs (40.8%) reported adequate sequence generation, 61 (6.7%) were inadequate, 410 (44.7%) lacked information, and 72 (7.9%) were observational studies incorrectly included as RCTs within the systematic review. Publication year, an author with statistical or epidemiological qualifications, and journal impact factor were each associated with adequate randomization. We found that 45 systematic reviews (45%) included at least one inadequately randomized RCT or an observational study incorrectly treated as a RCT. Conclusion. There is evidence of a lack of random allocation in RCTs included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. The conduct of RCTs and systematic reviews should be improved to minimize the risk of bias from inadequate randomization in RCTs and mislabelling of non-randomized studies as RCTs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1072–1080

Aims. The purpose of this survey study was to examine the demographic and lifestyle factors of women currently in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. An electronic survey was conducted of practising female orthopaedic surgeons based in the USA through both the Ruth Jackson Society and the online Facebook group “Women of Orthopaedics”. Results. The majority of surveyed female orthopaedic surgeons reported being married (76.4%; 285/373) and having children (67.6%; 252/373). In all, 66.5% (247/373) were collegiate athletes; 82.0% (306/373) reported having no female orthopaedic surgeon mentors in undergraduate and medical school. Their mean height is 65.8 inches and average weight is 147.3 lbs. Conclusion. The majority of female orthopaedic surgeons did not have female mentorship during their training. Additionally, biometrically, their build is similar to that of the average American woman. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):419–425

The aim of this study was to review the role of clinical trial networks in orthopaedic surgery. A total of two electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from inception to September 2013 with no language restrictions. Articles related to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), research networks and orthopaedic research, were identified and reviewed. The usefulness of trainee-led research collaborations is reported and our knowledge of current clinical trial infrastructure further supplements the review. Searching yielded 818 titles and abstracts, of which 12 were suitable for this review. Results are summarised and presented narratively under the following headings: 1) identifying clinically relevant research questions; 2) education and training; 3) conduct of multicentre RCTs and 4) dissemination and adoption of trial results. This review confirms growing international awareness of the important role research networks play in supporting trials in orthopaedic surgery. Multidisciplinary collaboration and adequate investment in trial infrastructure are crucial for successful delivery of RCTs. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:169–74

Aims. Now that we are in the deceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has shifted to how to safely reinstate elective operating. Regional and speciality specific data is important to guide this decision-making process. This study aimed to review 30-day mortality for all patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery during the peak of the pandemic within our region. Methods. This multicentre study reviewed data on all patients undergoing trauma and orthopaedic surgery in a region from 18 March 2020 to 27 April 2020. Information was collated from regional databases. Patients were COVID-19-positive if they had positive laboratory testing and/or imaging consistent with the infection. 30-day mortality was assessed for all patients. Secondly, 30-day mortality in fracture neck of femur patients was compared to the same time period in 2019. Results. Overall, 496 operations were carried out in 484 patients. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.9%. Seven out of nine deceased patients underwent surgery for a fractured neck of femur. In all, 27 patients contracted COVID-19 in the peri-operative period; of these, four patients died within 30 days (14.8%). In addition, 21 of the 27 patients in this group had a fractured neck of femur, 22 were over the age of 70 years (81.5%). Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade > 3 and/or age > 75 years were at significantly higher risk of death if they contracted COVID-19 within the study period. Conclusion. Overall 30-day postoperative mortality in trauma and orthopaedic surgery patients remains low at 1.9%. There was no 30-day mortality in patients ASA 1 or 2. Patients with significant comorbidities, increasing age, and ASA 3 or above remain at the highest risk. For patients with COVID-19 infection, postoperative 30-day mortality was 14.8%. The reintroduction of elective services should consider individual patient risk profile (including for ASA grade). Effective postoperative strategies should also be employed to try and reduce postoperative exposure to the virus. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:392–397

Introduction. There is widespread variation in the management of rare orthopaedic disease, in a large part owing to uncertainty. No individual surgeon or hospital is typically equipped to amass sufficient numbers of cases to draw robust conclusions from the information available to them. The programme of research will establish the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study; a nationwide reporting structure for rare disease in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. The BOSS Study is a series of nationwide observational cohort studies of pre-specified orthopaedic disease. All relevant hospitals treating the disease are invited to contribute anonymised case details. Data will be collected digitally through REDCap, with an additional bespoke software solution used to regularly confirm case ascertainment, prompt follow-up reminders and identify potential missing cases from external sources of information (i.e. national administrative data). With their consent, patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymised case data with patient reported outcomes. The study will primarily seek to calculate the incidence of the rare diseases under investigation, with 95% confidence intervals. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the case mix, treatment variations and outcomes. Inferential statistical analysis may be used to analyze associations between presentation factors and outcomes. Types of analyses will be contingent on the disease under investigation. Discussion. This study builds upon other national rare disease supporting structures, particularly those in obstetrics and paediatric surgery. It is particularly focused on addressing the evidence base for quality and safety of surgery, and the design is influenced by the specifications of the IDEAL collaboration for the development of surgical research

Introduction. The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method. A retrospective, single centre, observational cohort study of all patients undergoing surgery between 17 March 2020 and 3May 2020 was performed. Outcomes were stratified by British Orthopaedic Association COVID-19 Patient Risk Assessment Tool. Patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at the time of surgery were excluded. Results. Overall, 96 patients assessed as negative for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of surgery underwent 100 emergency or urgent orthopaedic procedures during the study period. Within 30 days of surgery 9.4% of patients (n = 9) were found to be SARS-CoV-2 positive by nasopharyngeal swab. The overall 30 day mortality rate across the whole cohort of patients during this period was 3% (n = 3). Of those testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 66% (n = 6) developed significant COVID-19 related complications and there was a 33% 30-day mortality rate (n = 3). Overall, the 30-day mortality in patients classified as BOA low or medium risk (n = 69) was 0%, whereas in those classified as high or very high risk (n = 27) it was 11.1%. Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgery in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients who transition to positive within 30 days of surgery carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. In lower risk groups, the overall risk of becoming SARS-CoV-2 positive, and subsequently developing a significant postoperative related complication, was low even during the peak of the pandemic. In addition to ensuring patients are SARS-CoV-2 negative at the time of surgery it is important that the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 is minimized through their recovery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:474–480

Aims. COVID-19 has changed the practice of orthopaedics across the globe. The medical workforce has dealt with this outbreak with varying strategies and adaptations, which are relevant to its field and to the region. As one of the ‘hotspots’ in the UK , the surgical branch of trauma and orthopaedics need strategies to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of COVID-19. Methods. Adapting to the crisis locally involved five operational elements: 1) triaging and workflow of orthopaedic patients; 2) operation theatre feasibility and functioning; 3) conservation of human resources and management of workforce in the department; 4) speciality training and progression; and 5) developing an exit strategy to resume elective work. Two hospitals under our trust were redesignated based on the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Registrar/consultant led telehealth reviews were carried out for early postoperative patients. Workflows for the management of outpatient care and inpatient care were created. We looked into the development of a dedicated operating space to perform the emergency orthopaedic surgeries without symptoms of COVID-19. Between March 23 and April 23, 2020, we have surgically treated 133 patients across both our hospitals in our trust. This mainly included hip fractures and fractures/infection affecting the hand. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic is not the first disease outbreak affecting the UK, nor will it be the last. The current crisis has necessitated rapid development of new hospital guidelines and early adaptive strategies in our services. Protocols and directives need to be formalized keeping in mind that COVID-19 will have a long and protracted course until a definitive cure is discovered

Aims

Physician burnout and its consequences have been recognized as increasingly prevalent and important issues for both organizations and individuals involved in healthcare delivery. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the patterns of self-reported wellness in orthopaedic surgeons and trainees from multiple nations with varying health systems.

Aims

This study assesses patient barriers to successful telemedicine care in orthopaedic practices in a large academic practice in the COVID-19 era.

Aims

Elective surgery has been severely curtailed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little evidence to guide surgeons in assessing what processes should be put in place to restart elective surgery safely in a time of endemic COVID-19 in the community.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has had a significant impact on trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) departments worldwide. To manage the peak of the epidemic, orthopaedic staff were redeployed to frontline medical care; these roles included managing minor injury units, forming a “proning” team, and assisting in the intensive care unit (ICU). In addition, outpatient clinics were restructured to facilitate virtual consultations, elective procedures were cancelled, and inpatient hospital admissions minimized to reduce nosocomial COVID-19 infections. Urgent operations for fractures, infection and tumours went ahead but required strict planning to ensure patient safety. Orthopaedic training has also been significantly impacted during this period. This article discusses the impact of COVID-19 on T&O in the UK and highlights key lessons learned that may help to proactively prepare for the next global pandemic.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:420–423.

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice. In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues, including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size, the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:161–8.

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.

Aims

The aims of this study were to describe the demographic, socioeconomic, and educational factors associated with core surgical trainees (CSTs) who apply to and receive offers for higher surgical training (ST3) posts in Trauma & Orthopaedics (T&O).

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the risk of postoperative complications in COVID-19-positive patients undergoing common orthopaedic procedures. Methods. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) database, patients who underwent common orthopaedic surgery procedures from 1 January to 31 December 2021 were extracted. Patient preoperative COVID-19 status, demographics, comorbidities, type of surgery, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Propensity score matching was conducted between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Multivariable regression was then performed to identify both patient and provider risk factors independently associated with the occurrence of 30-day postoperative adverse events. Results. Of 194,121 included patients, 740 (0.38%) were identified to be COVID-19-positive. Comparison of comorbidities demonstrated that COVID-19-positive patients had higher rates of diabetes, heart failure, and pulmonary disease. After propensity matching and controlling for all preoperative variables, multivariable analysis found that COVID-19-positive patients were at increased risk of several postoperative complications, including: any adverse event, major adverse event, minor adverse event, death, venous thromboembolism, and pneumonia. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery were at increased risk of 30-day adverse events. Conclusion. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery had increased odds of many 30-day postoperative complications, with hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery being the most high-risk procedures. These data reinforce prior literature demonstrating increased risk of venous thromboembolic events in the acute postoperative period. Clinicians caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures should be mindful of these increased risks, and attempt to improve patient care during the ongoing global pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):704–712

Aims. Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites. Methods. A multidisciplinary surgical prioritization committee developed the SPAG, incorporating procedural urgency, shared decision-making, patient safety, and biopsychosocial factors; and applied it to 1,142 adult patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery. Patients were stratified into four priority groups and underwent surgery at three COVID-free sites, including one with access to a high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU) and specialist resources. Safety was assessed by the number of patients requiring inpatient postoperative HDU/ICU admission, contracting COVID-19 within 14 days postoperatively, and mortality within 30 days postoperatively. Results. A total of 1,142 patients were included, 47 declined surgery, and 110 were deemed high-risk or requiring specialist resources. In the ten-week study period, 28 high-risk patients underwent surgery, during which 68% (13/19) of Priority 2 (P. 2. , surgery within one month) patients underwent surgery, and 15% (3/20) of P. 3. (< three months) and 16% (11/71) of P. 4. (> three months) groups. Of the 1,032 low-risk patients, 322 patients underwent surgery. Overall, 21 P. 3. and P. 4. patients were expedited to ‘Urgent’ based on biopsychosocial factors identified by the SPAG. During the study period, 91% (19/21) of the Urgent group, 52% (49/95) of P. 2. , 36% (70/196) of P. 3. , and 26% (184/720) of P. 4. underwent surgery. No patients died or were admitted to HDU/ICU, or contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. Our widely generalizable model enabled the restart of planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, without compromising patient safety or excluding high-risk or complex cases. Patients classified as Urgent or P. 2. were most likely to undergo surgery, including those deemed high-risk. This model, which includes assessment of biopsychosocial factors alongside disease severity, can assist in equitably prioritizing the substantial list of patients now awaiting planned orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):134–140

Aims. Patient-reported outcome measures have become an important part of routine care. The aim of this study was to determine if Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures can be used to create patient subgroups for individuals seeking orthopaedic care. Methods. This was a cross-sectional study of patients from Duke University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery clinics (14 ambulatory and four hospital-based). There were two separate cohorts recruited by convenience sampling (i.e. patients were included in the analysis only if they completed PROMIS measures during a new patient visit). Cohort #1 (n = 12,141; December 2017 to December 2018,) included PROMIS short forms for eight domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Pain Intensity, Depression, Anxiety, Sleep Quality, Participation in Social Roles, and Fatigue) and Cohort #2 (n = 4,638; January 2019 to August 2019) included PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing instruments for four domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Depression, and Sleep Quality). Cluster analysis (K-means method) empirically derived subgroups and subgroup differences in clinical and sociodemographic factors were identified with one-way analysis of variance. Results. Cluster analysis yielded four subgroups with similar clinical characteristics in Cohort #1 and #2. The subgroups were: 1) Normal Function: within normal limits in Physical Function, Pain Interference, Depression, and Sleep Quality; 2) Mild Impairment: mild deficits in Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Sleep Quality but with Depression within normal limits; 3) Impaired Function, Not Distressed: moderate deficits in Physical Function and Pain Interference, but within normal limits for Depression and Sleep Quality; and 4) Impaired Function, Distressed: moderate (Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Sleep Quality) and mild (Depression) deficits. Conclusion. These findings suggest orthopaedic patient subgroups differing in physical function, pain, and psychosocial distress can be created from as few as four different PROMIS measures. Longitudinal research is necessary to determine whether these subgroups have prognostic validity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):493–502