Aims. The aim of this study was to surveil whether the standard operating procedure created for the NHS Golden Jubilee sufficiently managed COVID-19 risk to allow safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery. Methods. This was a prospective study of all elective orthopaedic patients within an elective unit running a green pathway at a COVID-19 light site. Rates of preoperative and 30-day postoperative COVID-19 symptoms or infection were examined for a period of 40 weeks. The unit resumed elective orthopaedic services on 29 June 2020 at a reduced capacity for a limited number of day-case procedures with strict patient selection criteria, increasing to full service on 29 August 2020 with no patient selection criteria. Results. A total of 2,373 cases were planned in the 40-week study period. Surgery was cancelled in 59 cases, six (10.2%) of which were due to having a positive preoperative COVID-19 screening test result. Of the remaining 2,314, 996 (43%) were male and 1,318 (57%) were female. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 59.2 to 74.6). The median American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was 2. Hip and knee arthroplasties accounted for the majority of the operations (76%). Six patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively (0.25%) and 39 patients were tested for COVID-19 within 30 days after discharge, with only five patients testing positive (0.22%). Conclusion. Through strict application of a COVID-19 green pathway, elective orthopaedic surgery could be safely delivered to a large number of patients with no selection criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):951–957

Abstract. Background. During COVID-19 pandemic, there has been worldwide cancellation of elective surgeries to protect patients from nosocomial transmission and peri-operative complications. With unfolding situation, there is definite need for exit strategy to reinstate elective services. Therefore, more literature evidence supporting exit plan to elective surgical services is imperative to adopt a safe working principle. This study aims to provide evidence for safe elective surgical practice during pandemic. Methods. This single centre, prospective, observational study included adult patients who were admitted and underwent elective surgical procedures in the trust's COVID-Free environment at Birmingham Treatment Centre between 19th May and 14th July’2020. Data collected on demographic parameters, peri-operative variables, surgical specialities, COVID-19 RT-PCR testing results, post-operative complications and mortality. The study also highlighted the protocols it followed for the elective services during pandemic. Results. 303 patients were included with mean age of 49.9 years (SD 16.5) comprising of 59% (178) female and 41% (125) male. They were classified according to American Society of Anaesthesiologist Grade, different surgical specialities and types of anaesthesia used. 96% patients were discharged on the same day. 100% compliance to pre-operative COVID-19 testing was maintained. There was no 30-day mortality or major respiratory complications. Conclusion. Careful patient selection, simultaneous involvement of the pre-assessment and anaesthetic team, strict adherence to peri-operative protocols and delivering vigilant post-operative care for COVID-19 infection can help providing safe elective surgical services if the community transmission under reasonable control. However, it is particularly important to maintain COVID-free safe environment for such procedures

Abstract. Background. Post operative radiographs following total joint arthroplasty are requested as part of routine follow up in many institutions. These studies have a significant cost to the local departments, in terms of financial and clinic resources, however, previous research has suggested they may not alter the course of the patients treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the significance of elective post operative radiographs on changes in management of patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty. Method. All patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty at a District General Hospital from 2019 to 2020 were included. Data was collected retrospectively from medical records and radiograph requests. Alterations to clinical management based on radiographic findings were reviewed in clinic letters. Results. A total of 227 Total joint arthroplasty were retrieved. With 111(49%) total hip arthroplasty and 116 (51%) total knee arthroplasty. 54 were excluded due to having no clinical follow up and 173 met inclusion criteria. 56 (32%) had their post operative elective radiograph, while 93 (53.8%) patients had none. There were no abnormalities detected from the elective radiographs and none of the patients returned to the theatre. 24 patients (13%) presented with symptoms and had non-elective radiographs, 16 (67%) did not have any interventions and 8 (4.6%) required intervention and were taken to theatre. Discussion: Not performing these radiographs saves time, cost, and prevents unnecessary radiation exposure. In our institution, a 2-view joint radiograph costs £29 and takes roughly 15 minutes. This does not include indirect costs of additional clinic time and patient waiting time. In the larger context, the cost associated with elective radiographs is significant and our data suggests that routine post-operative radiographs are not beneficial as part of standard post-operative protocol for asymptomatic patients. However, performing imaging remains beneficial for patients who re-present with symptoms. Conclusion. Routine elective post-operative joint radiographs did not detect any true abnormalities. Information from elective radiographs has no clinical significance and did not change management. Therefore, this study recommends that there is no rationale requesting elective post-operative joint radiographs. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Aims. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens for elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasty vary widely across hospitals and trusts in the UK. This study aimed to identify antibiotic prophylaxis regimens currently in use for elective primary arthroplasty across the UK, establish variations in antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and their impact on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the first-year post-index procedure, and evaluate adherence to current international consensus guidance. Methods. The guidelines for the primary and alternative recommended prophylactic antibiotic regimens in clean orthopaedic surgery (primary arthroplasty) for 109 hospitals and trusts across the UK were sought by searching each trust and hospital’s website (intranet webpages), and by using the MicroGuide app. The mean cost of each antibiotic regimen was calculated using price data from the British National Formulary (BNF). Regimens were then compared to the 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance, to evaluate adherence to international guidance. Results. The primary choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimens varied widely. The two most used regimens were combined teicoplanin and gentamicin, and cefuroxime followed by two or three doses of cefuroxime eight-hourly, recommended by 24 centres (22.02%) each. The alternative choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimen also varied widely across the 83 centres with data available. Prophylaxis regimens across some centres fail to cover the likeliest causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Five centres (4.59%) recommend co-amoxiclav, which confers no Staphylococcus coverage, while 33 centres (30.28%) recommend cefuroxime, which confers no Enterococcus coverage. Limited adherence to 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance was observed, with 67 centres (61.50%) not including a cephalosporin in their guidance. Conclusion. This analysis of guidance on antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty across 109 hospitals and trusts in the UK has identified widespread variation in primary and alternative antimicrobial regimens currently recommended. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):742–749

Aims. Elective orthopaedic surgery was cancelled early in the COVID-19 pandemic and is currently running at significantly reduced capacity in most institutions. This has resulted in a significant backlog to treatment, with some hospitals projecting that waiting times for arthroplasty is three times the pre-COVID-19 duration. There is concern that the patient group requiring arthroplasty are often older and have more medical comorbidities—the same group of patients advised they are at higher risk of mortality from catching COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate the morbidity and mortality in elective patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this to a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, including nosocomial COVID-19 infection. These operations were performed in a district general hospital, with COVID-19 acute admissions in the same building. Methods. Our institution reinstated elective operations using a “Blue stream” pathway, which involves isolation before and after surgery, COVID-19 testing pre-admission, and separation of ward and theatre pathways for “blue” patients. A register of all arthroplasties was taken, and their clinical course and investigations recorded. Results. During a seven-month period, 340 elective arthroplasties were performed. There was zero mortality. One patient had a positive swab for COVID-19 while an inpatient, but remained asymptomatic. There were two readmissions within a 12-week period for hip dislocation. Patients had a mean age of 68 years (28 to 90), mean BMI of 30 kg/m. 2. (19.0 to 45.6), and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of 2 (1 to 3). Conclusion. Results show no increased morbidity or mortality in this cohort of patients compared to the same hospital’s morbidity and mortality pre-COVID-19. The screened pathway for elective patients is effective in ensuring that patients can be safely operated on electively in an acute hospital. This study should reassure clinicians and patients that arthroplasties can be carried out safely when the appropriate precautions are in place. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):940–944

The significance of ring-fencing orthopaedic beds and protected elective sites have recently been highlighted by the British Orthopaedic Association & Royal College of Surgeons. During the pandemic many such elective setups were established with various degrees of success. This study aimed to compare the functioning and efficiency of a Orthopaedic Protected Elective Surgical Unit (PESU) instituted during the pandemic with the pre-pandemic elective service at our hospital (Pre-Pandemic ward or PPW). We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent elective Orthopaedic procedures in a protected elective unit during the pandemic (March 2020 – July 2020) and a similar cohort of patients operated via the routine elective service immediately prior to the pandemic (October 2019 – February 2020). Various parameters were compared and analysed. To minimise the effect of confounding factors a secondary analysis was undertaken comparing total hip replacements (THR) by a single surgeon via PESU (PESU-THR) and PPW (PPW-THR) over 5 months each from March-July 2021 and March-July 2019 respectively. A total of 192 cases were listed on PESU during the studied period whereas this number was 339 for PPW. However more than half (52%) of those listed for a surgery on PPW were cancelled and only 162 cases (48%) were actually performed. PESU had a significantly better conversion rate with only 12.5% being cancelled and 168 (87.5%) cases performed. 49% (87 out of 177) of the cases cancelled on PPW were due to a ‘bed unavailability’. A further 17% (30/177) and 16% (28/177) were cancelled due to ‘emergency case prioritisation’ and ‘patient deemed unfit’ respectively. In contrast only 3 out of the 24 patients cancelled on PESU were due to bed unavailability and the main reason for cancellation here was ‘patient deemed unfit’ (9/24). Single surgeon THR, showed similar demographic features for the 25 patients on PESU and 37 patients on PPW. The average age for these patients was 63 on PESU and 69 on PPW whereas the BMI was 33 and 30 respectively. The patients on PESU also demonstrated a decrease in length of hospital stay with an average of 3 days in comparison to 4.8 days for those admitted to PPW. PROMS scores were comparable at 6 weeks with an average improvement of 16.4/48 in the PESU-THR cohort and of 18.8/48 in the PPW-THR cohort. There were no readmissions or revisions recorded in the PESU-THR cohort while the PPW-THR cohort had 1 readmission and revision. Our study shows how a small ring fenced Orthopaedic elective unit in a district general hospital, even during a global pandemic, can function more efficiently than a routine elective facility with many shared services

Aims. With resumption of elective spine surgery services in the UK following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multicentre British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) collaborative study to examine the complications and deaths due to COVID-19 at the recovery phase of the pandemic. The aim was to analyze the safety of elective spinal surgery during the pandemic. Methods. A prospective observational study was conducted from eight spinal centres for the first month of operating following restoration of elective spine surgery in each individual unit. Primary outcome measure was the 30-day postoperative COVID-19 infection rate. Secondary outcomes analyzed were the 30-day mortality rate, surgical adverse events, medical complications, and length of inpatient stay. Results. In all, 257 patients (128 males) with a median age of 54 years (2 to 88) formed the study cohort. The mean number of procedures performed from each unit was 32 (16 to 101), with 118 procedures (46%) done as category three prioritization level. The majority of patients (87%) were low-medium “risk stratification” category and the mean length of hospital stay was 5.2 days. None of the patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, nor was there any mortality related to COVID-19 during the 30-day follow-up period, with 25 patients (10%) having been tested for symptoms. Overall, 32 patients (12%) developed a total of 34 complications, with the majority (19/34) being grade 1 to 2 Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. No patient required postoperative care in an intensive care setting for any unexpected complication. Conclusion. This study shows that safe and effective planned spinal surgical services can be restored avoiding viral transmission, with diligent adherence to national guidelines and COVID-19-secure pathways tailored according to the resources of the individual spinal units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1096–1101

COVID 19 led to massive disruption of elective services across Scotland. This study was designed to assess the impact on elective service that the COVID-19 pandemic had, to what extent services have been restarted and the associated risks are in doing so. This is a retrospective observational study. The primary outcomes are the number of operations completed, 30-day mortality, 30-day complication rates and nosocomial infection with COVID-19 compared to previous years. Data was collected from 4 regions across Scotland from 27th March 2020 - 26th March 2021. This was compared to the same time period the previous year. 3431 elective operations were completed in the year post-pandemic compared with 12255, demonstrating a reduction of 72%. Both groups had comparable demographics. Major joint arthroplasty saw a 72% reduction, with TKR seeing a reduction of 82%. Each of the 4 health boards were affected in a similar fashion. Nosocomial COVID-19 infection was 0.4% in the post covid group. 30 day mortality was the same at 0.1%. Total complications rose from 5.7% to 10.1% post covid. This study shows that there has been a substantial reduction in elective activity across Scotland that is disproportionate to the level of COVID-19. The risk of developing COVID-19 from elective surgery is low at 0.4%, however all complications saw a significant rise. This is likely multifactorial. This study will inform decision makers in future pandemics, that it is safe to continue elective orthopaedic surgery and of the potential impact of cessation of services

The presence of metastatic bone disease (MBD) often necessitates major orthopaedic surgery. Patients will enter surgical care either through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways. Patients in a pain crisis or with an acute fracture are generally admitted via emergent care pathways whereas patients with identified high-risk bone lesions are often booked for urgent yet scheduled elective procedures. The purpose of this study is to compare the post-operative outcomes of patients who present through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways in patients in a Canadian health care system. We have conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of all patients presenting for surgery for MBD of the femur, humerus, tibia or pelvis in southern Alberta between 2006 and 2021. Patients were identified by a search query of all patients with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer who underwent surgery for an impending or actual pathologic fracture in the Calgary, South and Central Alberta Zones. Subsequent chart reviews were performed. Emergent surgeries were defined by patients admitted to hospital via urgent care mechanisms and managed via unscheduled surgical bookings (“on call list”). Elective surgeries were defined by patients seen by an orthopaedic surgeon at least once prior to surgery, and booked for a scheduled urgent, yet elective procedure. Outcomes include overall survival from the time of surgery, hospital length of stay, and 30-day hospital readmission rate. We have identified 402 patients to date for inclusion. 273 patients (67.9%) underwent surgery through emergent pathways and 129 patients (32.1%) were treated through urgent, electively scheduled pathways. Lung, prostate, renal cell, and breast cancer were the most common primary malignancies and there was no significant difference in these primaries amongst the groups (p=0.06). Not surprisingly, emergent patients were more likely to be treated for a pathologic fracture (p<0.001) whereas elective patients were more likely to be treated for an impending fracture (p<0.001). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the emergent group (5.0 months, 95%CI: 4.0-6.1) compared to the elective group (14.9 months 95%CI: 10.4-24.6) [p<0.001]. Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the emergent group (13 days, 95%CI: 12-16 versus 5 days, 95%CI: 5-7 days). There was a significantly greater rate of 30-day hospital readmission in the emergent group (13.3% versus 7.8%) [p=0.01]. Electively managed MBD has multiple benefits including longer post-operative survival, shorter length of hospital stay, and a lower rate of 30-day hospital readmission. These findings from a Canadian healthcare system demonstrate clinical value in providing elective orthopaedic care when possible for patients with MBD. Furthermore, care delivery interventions capable of decreasing the footprint of emergent surgery through enhanced screening or follow-up of patients with MBD has the potential to significantly improve clinical outcomes in this population. This is an ongoing study that will justify refinements to the current surgical care pathways for MBD in order to identify patients prior to emergent presentation. Future directions will evaluate the costs associated with each care delivery method to provide opportunity for health economic efficiencies

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

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. Waiting times for arthroplasty surgery in Northern Ireland are among the longest in the NHS, which have been further lengthened by the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic in March 2020. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland has announced a new Elective Care Framework (ECF), with the framework proposing that by March 2026 no patient will wait more than 52 weeks for inpatient/day case treatment. We aimed to assess the feasibility of achieving this with reference to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Mathematical modelling was undertaken to calculate when the ECF targets will be achieved for THA and TKA, as well as the time when waiting lists for THA and TKA will be cleared. The number of patients currently on the waiting list and percentage operating capacity relative to pre-COVID-19 capacity was used to determine future projections. Results. As of May 2021, there were 3,757 patients awaiting primary THA and 4,469 patients awaiting primary TKA in Northern Ireland. Prior to April 2020, there were a mean 2,346 (2,085 to 2,610) patients per annum boarded for primary THA, a mean 2,514 (2,494 to 2,514) patients per annum boarded for primary TKA, and there were a mean 1,554 primary THAs and 1,518 primary TKAs performed per annum. The ECF targets for THA will only be achieved in 2030 if operating capacity is 200% of pre COVID-19 pandemic capacity and in 2042 if capacity is 170%. For TKA, the targets will be met in 2034 if capacity is 200% of pre-COVID-19 pandemic capacity. Conclusion. This modelling demonstrates that, in the absence of major funding and reorganization of elective orthopaedic care, the targets set out in the ECF will not be achieved with regard to THA and TKA. Waiting times for THA and TKA surgery in Northern Ireland are likely to remain greater than 52 weeks for most of this decade. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):302–306

Revision knee arthroplasty is a complex procedure with the number and cost of knee revision procedures performed per year expected to rise. Few studies have examined adverse events following revision arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to determine rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications) and to compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the UK Hospital Episode Statistics. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications were included in the elective indications cohort. 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty cases were included of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% CI 0.37-0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44-0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection, however, was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75-2.35; odds ratio [OR] 3.54; 95% CI 2.81-4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94-6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39-8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. These findings highlight the burden of complications associated with revision knee arthroplasty. They will inform shared decision-making for patients considering revision knee arthroplasty for elective indications. Patients presenting with infection of a knee arthroplasty or a periprosthetic fracture are at very high risk of adverse events. It is important that acute hospital services and tertiary referral centres caring for these patients are appropriately supported to ensure appropriate urgency and an anticipation for increased care requirements

Abstract. Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has strongly impacted elective orthopaedic surgery. At our trust, a geographically discrete elective site deals with planned orthopaedic surgery. There was a need to define a green pathway to deliver surgical care safely and efficiently, and tackle mounting waiting lists. Methods. Records of patients operated at our elective site, between 1. st. July 2020 and 14. th. January 2021, under a green pathway, including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID screening and segregating perioperative patients, were reviewed, and analysed retrospectively. Patients who did not attend (DNA) their post-operative follow-up appointments were identified. Finally, regional COVID incidence was compared with that in our centre. Results. During this period, 2466 patients were admitted for elective orthopaedic surgery, of which sixteen (0.6%) tested COVID-positive. Among these, two tested positive during asymptomatic in-patient screening, five tested positive within two weeks of discharge, while six tested positive beyond two weeks. One patient tested positive on the day of surgery, which was then postponed. Fourteen (87.5%) patients who tested positive recovered, with two COVID-related mortalities. We identified 34 (1.4%) DNA patients. The COVID incidence in our centre closely paralleled the regional incidence. There were no major COVID outbreaks and no definite evidence of in-hospital transmission. Conclusion. This green pathway has helped streamline patient flow for continuing elective surgery safely through the pandemic, under cautionary monitoring. Modulating elective activity in response to regional COVID rates is vital for addressing waiting lists. Given the encouraging results, this pathway is an effective measure for maintaining elective activity through the pandemic

OpenPredictor, a machine learning-enabled clinical decision aid, has been developed to manage backlogs in elective surgeries. It aims to optimise the use of high volume, low complexity surgical pathways by accurately stratifying patient risk, thereby facilitating the allocation of patients to the most suitable surgical sites. The tool augments elective surgical pathways by providing automated secondary opinions for perioperative risk assessments, enhancing decision-making. Its primary application is in elective sites utilising lighter pre-assessment methods, identifying patients with minimal complication risks and those high-risk individuals who may benefit from early pre-assessment. The Phase 1 clinical evaluation of OpenPredictor entailed a prospective analysis of 156 patient records from elective hip and knee joint replacement surgeries. Using a polynomial logistic regression model, patients were categorised into high, moderate, and low-risk groups. This categorisation incorporated data from various sources, including patient demographics, co-morbidities, blood tests, and overall health status. In identifying patients at risk of postoperative complications, OpenPredictor demonstrated parity with consultant-led preoperative assessments. It accurately flagged 70% of patients who later experienced complications as moderate or high risk. The tool's efficiency in risk prediction was evidenced by its balanced accuracy (75.6%), sensitivity (70% with a 95% confidence interval of 62.05% to 76.91%), and a high negative predictive value (96.7%). OpenPredictor presents a scalable and consistent solution for managing elective surgery pathways, comparable in performance to secondary consultant opinions. Its integration into pre-assessment workflows assists in efficient patient categorisation, reduces late surgery cancellations, and optimises resource allocation. The Phase 1 evaluation of OpenPredictor underscores its potential for broader clinical application and highlights the need for ongoing data refinement and system integration to enhance its performance

Aims. Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients undergoing primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty over a six-month period, from 1 July to 31 December 2020, were compared to the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, wait to surgery, COVID-19 status, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results. A total of 1,311 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty in the six-month period following recommencement of elective services in 2020 compared to 1,527 patients the year before. Waiting time to surgery increased in post-COVID-19 group (137 days vs 78; p < 0.001). Length of stay also significantly increased (0.49 days; p < 0.001) despite no difference in age or ASA grade. There were no cases of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. Time to surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly higher following recommencement of elective orthopaedic services in the latter part of 2020 in comparison to a similar patient cohort from the year before. Longer waiting times may have contributed to the clinical and radiological deterioration of arthritis and general musculoskeletal conditioning, which may in turn have affected immediate postoperative rehabilitation and mobilization, as well as increasing hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):655–660

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to compare implant survivorship and functional outcomes in patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for acute proximal humeral fracture (PHF) with those undergoing elective RTSA in a population-based cohort study. Methods. Prospectively collected data from the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to 2021 and identified 7,277 patients who underwent RTSA. Patients were categorized by pre-operative indication, including acute PHF (10.1%), rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) (41.9%), osteoarthritis (OA) (32.2%), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (5.2%) and old traumatic sequelae (4.9%). The PHF group was compared with elective indications based on patient, implant, and operative characteristics, as well as post-operative outcomes (Oxford Shoulder Score [OSS], and revision rate) at 6 months, 5 and 10 years after surgery. Survival and functional outcome analyses were adjusted by age, sex, ASA class and surgeon experience. Results. Implant survivorship at 10 years for RTSA for PHF was 97.3%, compared to 96.1%, 93.7%, 92.8% and 91.3% for OA, RCA, RA and traumatic sequelae, respectively. When compared with RTSA for PHF, the adjusted risk of revision was higher for traumatic sequelae (hazard ratio = 2.29; 95% CI:1.12–4.68, p=0.02) but not for other elective indications. At 6 months post-surgery, OSS were significantly lower for the PHF group compared to RCA, OA and RA groups (31.1±0.5 vs. 35.6±0.22, 37.7±0.25, 36.5±0.6, respectively, p<0.01), but not traumatic sequelae (31.7±0.7, p=0.43). At 5 years, OSS were only significantly lower for PHF compared to OA (37.4±0.9 vs 41.0±0.5, p<0.01), and at 10 years, there were no differences between groups. Discussion and Conclusion. RTSA for PHF demonstrated reliable long-term survivorship and functional outcomes compared to other elective indications. Despite lower functional outcomes in the early post-operative period for the acute PHF group, implant survivorship rates were similar to patients undergoing elective RTSA

The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the adequacy of informed consent documentation in the trauma setting for distal radius fracture surgery compared with the elective setting for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a large public hospital and (2) to explore the relevant guidelines in New Zealand relating to consent documentation. Consecutive adult patients (≥16 years) undergoing operations for distal radius fractures and elective TKA over a 12-month period in a single-centre were retrospectively identified. All medical records were reviewed for the risks and complications recorded. The consent form was analysed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index readability scores. A total of 133 patients undergoing 134 operations for 135 distal radius fractures and 239 patients undergoing 247 TKA were included. Specific risks of surgery were recorded significantly less frequently for distal radius fractures than TKA (43.3% versus 78.5%, P < 0.001). Significantly fewer risks were recorded in the trauma setting compared to the elective (2.35 ± 2.98 versus 4.95 ± 3.33, P < 0.001). The readability of the consent form was 40.5 using the FRES and 10.9 using the SMOG index, indicating a university undergraduate level of reading. This study has shown poor compliance in documenting risks of surgery during the informed consent process in an acute trauma setting compared to elective arthroplasty. Institutions must prioritise improving documentation of informed consent for orthopaedic trauma patients to ensure a patient-centred approach to healthcare

Aims. The primary aim is to estimate the current and potential number of patients on NHS England orthopaedic elective waiting lists by November 2020. The secondary aims are to model recovery strategies; review the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty from National Joint Registry (NJR) data; and assess the cost of returning to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. Methods. A model of referral, waiting list, and eventual surgery was created and calibrated using historical data from NHS England (April 2017 to March 2020) and was used to investigate the possible consequences of unmet demand resulting from fewer patients entering the treatment pathway and recovery strategies. NJR data were used to estimate the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty by August 2020 and NHS tariff costs were used to calculate the financial burden. Results. By November 2020, the elective waiting list in England is predicted to be between 885,286 and 1,028,733. If reduced hospital capacity is factored into the model, returning to full capacity by November, the waiting list could be as large as 1.4 million. With a 30% increase in productivity, it would take 20 months if there was no hidden burden of unreferred patients, and 48 months if there was a hidden burden, to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. By August 2020, the estimated deficits of hip and knee arthroplasties from NJR data were 18,298 (44.8%) and 16,567 (38.6%), respectively, compared to the same time period in 2019. The cost to clear this black log would be £198,811,335. Conclusion. There will be up to 1.4 million patients on elective orthopaedic waiting lists in England by November 2020, approximate three-times the pre-COVID-19 average. There are various strategies for recovery to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers reliant on increasing capacity, but these have substantial cost implications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):103–110

Abstract. Introduction. 30-day emergency readmission is an indicator of treatment related complication once discharged, resulting in readmission. A board-approved quality improvement pathway was introduced to reduce elective re-admissions. Method. The pathway involved telephone and email contact details provision to patients for any non-life threatening medical assistance, allowing for initial nurse led management of all issues. A new clinic room available 7 days, and same day ultrasound scanning for DVT studies were introduced. A capability, opportunity and behavior model of change was implemented. Readmission rates before and six months after implementation were collected from Model Hospital. A database used to document patient communications was interrogated for patient outcomes. Results. Prior to implementation, readmission rates following elective primary total knee replacement (TKR) at the 1st business quarter of 2021 (April – June 2021), was 8.7%, (benchmark 3.8%). Following implementation, readmission rates decreased to 4.1% (October – December 2021). 54% of patients making contact were managed with telephone advice. 15% of patients required face-to-face clinic. 32% of those required a same day scan to exclude DVT (1/4). 20 out of 684 TKRs performed following protocol introduction were re-admitted within 30 days. Readmissions were 41% surgical, 29% medical. 52% were unaware of the newly implemented protocol. Further improvements have been made to the protocol based on these findings. Implementation of a suitable pathway can significantly reduce re-admission rates in our center and could be used to reduce readmission rates in other national elective treatment centers