The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228

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

Introduction. The health sector contributes the equivalent of 4.4% of global net emissions to the climate carbon footprint. It has been suggested that between 20% and 70% of health care waste originates from a hospital's operating room, the second greatest component of this are the textiles used, and up to 90% of waste is sent for costly and unneeded hazardous waste processing. Waste from common orthopaedic operations was quantified, the carbon footprint calculated, and cost of disposal assessed. A discussion of the circular economy of textiles, from the author of the textile guidance to the Green Surgery Report follows. Methods. The amount of waste generated from a variety of trauma and elective orthopaedic operations was calculated across a range of hospital sites. The waste was separated primarily into clean and contaminated, paper or plastic. The carbon footprint and the cost of disposal across the hospital sites was subsequently calculated. Results. Elective procedures can generate up to 16.5kg of plastic waste per procedure. Practices such as double draping the patient contribute to increasing the quantity of waste. The cost to process waste vary widely between hospital sites, waste disposal contractors and the method of waste disposal. Conclusion. This study sheds new light on the environmental impact of waste produced in trauma and elective orthopaedic procedures. Mitigating the environmental impact of the operating room requires a collective drive for a culture change to sustainability and social responsibility. Each clinician can impact upon the carbon footprint of their operating theatre. Consideration should be given to the type of textiles used within the operating theatre

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

Abstract. Background. Orthopaedic training in Southern Africa is largely focused on trauma, although elective procedures, such as knee arthroscopy are increasing. This is especially true in the private sector where most trainees will practice. The primary aim of this study was to assess the arthroscopic competency of orthopaedic trainees in a setting of limited resources. Methods. A prospective observational cohort study was carried out. Orthopaedic trainees of a Southern African university hospital performed basic arthroscopy on a knee model. Their surgical competency was assessed by two surgeons proficient in arthroscopy using the modified Basic Knee Arthroscopy Skill Scoring System (mBAKSSS). Results. A total of 16 trainees (12 male) were included (6 junior and 10 senior trainees). The median age of participants was 36 (34.8, 37). The median mBAKSSS was 28.0 (20.3, 32.5) but showed a large variability (12.0–42.5). The overall reliability was excellent with Cronbach's Alpha of 0.91 and interclass correlation of 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 0.97]. Conclusions. The average knee arthroscopy proficiency of our trainees is comparable to those of international training programs, but there was great variability with inconsistent skills amongst the trainees. This calls for improved and reproducible arthroscopy training and skills transfer, exposure to procedures and ongoing assessment

Introduction. VTE is a possible complication of foot and ankle surgery, however there is an absence of agreement on contributing risk factors in the development of VTE. The primary outcome of this study was to analyse the 90-day incidence of symptomatic VTE following foot and ankle surgery and to determine which factors may increase the risk of VTE. Methods. This was a national, multi-centre prospective audit spanning a collection duration of 9 months (2022/2023). Primary outcomes included incidence of symptomatic VTE and VTE related mortality up to 90 days following foot and ankle surgery and Achilles tendon rupture, and analysis of risk factors. Results. In total 11,363 patients were available for analysis. 5,090 patients (44.79%) were elective procedures, 4,791 patients (42.16%) were trauma procedures (excluding Achilles ruptures), 398 patients (3.50%) were acute diabetic procedures, 277 patients (2.44%) were Achilles ruptures undergoing surgery and 807 patients (7.10%) were Achilles ruptures treated non-operatively. There were 99 cases of VTE within 90 days of admission across the whole group (Total incidence = 0.87%), with 3 cases of VTE related mortality (0.03%). On univariate analysis, increased age and ASA grade showedhigher odds of 90-day VTE, as did previous cancer, stroke, history of VTE, and type of foot and ankle procedure / injury (p<0.05). However, on multivariate analysis, the only independent predictors for 90-day VTE were found to be the type of foot and ankle procedure (Achilles tendon rupture = Odd's Ratio 11.62, operative to 14.41, non-operative) and ASA grade (grade III/IV = Odd's Ratio 3.64). Conclusion. The incidence of 90-day post procedure VTE in foot and ankle surgery in this national audit was low. Significant, independent risk factors associated with the development of 90-day symptomatic VTE were Achilles tendon rupture management and high ASA grade

Introduction. This study aimed to assess the relationship between preparation times and operative procedures for elective orthopaedic surgery. A clearer understanding of these relationships may facilitate list organisation and thereby contribute to improved operating theatre efficiency. Methods. Two years of elective orthopaedic theatre data was retrospectively analysed. The hospital medical information unit provided de- identified data for 2015 and 2016 elective orthopaedic cases, from which were selected seven categories of procedures with sufficient numbers to allow further analysis - primary hip and knee replacement, spinal surgery, shoulder surgery (excluding shoulder replacement), knee surgery, foot and ankle surgery (excluding ankle replacement), Dupuytrens surgery and general orthopaedic surgery. The data analysed included patient age, ASA grade, operation, operation time, and preparation time (calculated as the time from the start of the anaesthetic proceedings to the patient's admission to Recovery, with the operating time [skin incision to skin closure] subtracted). Statistical analysis of the data was undertaken. Results. A total of 1596 procedures performed over the two year period were analysed. Preparation times for the different procedures were assessed, along with the relationship to the procedure complexity. Neither age nor ASA correlated strongly with preparation times. Spine procedures had greater preparation times than hip and knee arthroplasty. Greater uniformity in preparation times for hip and knee arthroplasty was seen across the anaesthetic group than operative times across the surgeon group. Discussion. Preparation times are just one aspect that may be evaluated with regard to theatre utilisation. This study did not address the theatre turn-over time between cases, which includes transfer of the patient from the admitting/pre-operative area into the theatre. Conclusion. Preparation times for elective procedures follow a pattern which may be used to inform list planning, with the potential for greater theatre efficiencies with regard to list utilisation and staff allocation

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events. Methods. A retrospective review of 124 consecutive primary arthroplasty procedures performed after resuming elective procedures on 11 May 2020 were compared to the previous 124 consecutive patients treated prior to 17 March 2020, at a single urban safety net hospital. Revision arthroplasty and patients with < 90-day follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome measures were hospital LOS and the number of SDDs. Secondary outcome measures included 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and 30day emergency department (ED) visits. Results. The mean LOS was significantly reduced from 2.02 days (SD 0.80) in the pre-COVID cohort to 1.03 days (SD 0.65) in the post-COVID cohort (p < 0.001). No patients in the pre-COVID group were discharged on the day of surgery compared to 60 patients (48.4%) in the post-COVID group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 90-day complications (13.7% (n = 17) vs 9.7% (n = 12); p = 0.429), 30-day ED visits (1.6% (n = 2) vs 3.2% (n = 4); p = 0.683), or 90-day readmissions (2.4% (n = 3) vs 1.6% (n = 2); p = 1.000) between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups, respectively. Conclusion. Through use of an ERP, arthroplasty procedures were successfully resumed at a safety net hospital with a shorter LOS and increased SDDs without a difference in acute adverse events. The resulting increase in healthcare value therefore may be considered a ‘silver lining’ to the moratorium on elective arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. These improved efficiencies are expected to continue in post-pandemic era. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):871–878

Introduction and Objective. Total shoulder replacement is a common elective procedure offered to patients with end stage arthritis. While most patients experience significant pain relief and improved function within months of surgery, some remain unsatisfied because of residual pain or dissatisfaction with their functional status. Among these patients, when laboratory workup eliminates infection as a possibility, corticosteroid injection (CSI) into the joint space, or on the periprosthetic anatomic structures, is a common procedure used for symptom management. However, the efficacy and safety of this procedure has not been previously reported in shoulder literature. Materials and Methods. A retrospective chart review identified primary TSA patients who subsequently received a CSI into a replaced shoulder from 2011 – 2018 by multiple surgeons. Patients receiving an injection underwent clinical exam, laboratory analysis to rule out infection, and radiographic evaluation prior to CSI. Demographic variables were recorded, and a patient satisfaction survey assessed the efficacy of the injection. Results. Of the 43 responders, 48.8% remembered the injection. The average time from index arthroplasty to injection was median 16.8 months. Overall, 61.9% reported decreased pain, 28.6% reported increased motion, and 28.6% reported long term decreased swelling. Improvement lasted greater than one month for 42.9% of patients, and overall 52.4% reported improvement (slight to great) in the shoulder following CSI. No patient developed a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 2 years of injection. Conclusions. This study suggests that certain patients following TSA may benefit from a CSI. However, this should only be performed once clinical, radiographic, and laboratory examination has ruled out conditions unlikely to improve long term from a CSI. Given these findings, further study in a large, prospective trial is warranted to fully evaluate the benefits of CSI following TSA

There has been a significant increase in waiting times for elective surgical procedures in orthopaedic surgery as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As per the hospital policy, patients awaiting elective surgery for more than 52 weeks were offered a consultant-led harm review. The aim of this study was to objectively assess the impact of this service on the field of foot and ankle surgery. The data from harm review clinics at a District General Hospital related to patients waiting to undergo elective foot and ankle procedures in the year 2021 (wait time of more than 52 weeks) were assessed. Clinical data points like change in diagnosis, need for further investigations, and patients being taken off the waiting list were reviewed. The effect of the waiting time on patients’ mental health and their perception of the service was assessed as well. A total of 72 patients awaiting foot and ankle procedures for more than 52 weeks were assessed as a part of the harm review service. It was noted that 25% of patients found that their symptoms had worsened while 66.1% perceived them to be unchanged. Twelve patients (16.9%) were sent for updated investigations. Twenty-one patients (29.5%) were taken off the waiting lists for various reasons with the most common one being other pressing health concerns; 9% of patients affirmed that the wait for surgery had a significant negative impact on their mental health. This study concludes that the harm review service is a useful programme as it helps guide changes in the diagnosis and clinical picture. The service is found to be valuable by most patients, and its impact on the service specialities and multiple centres could be further assessed to draw broad conclusions

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants. The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low. The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to healthcare systems across the globe in 2020. There were concerns surrounding early reports of increased mortality among patients undergoing emergency or non-urgent surgery. We report the morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures during the UK first stage of the pandemic. Methods. Institutional review board approval was obtained for a review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures between March and May 2020 at a specialist orthopaedic centre in the UK. Data included diagnoses, comorbidities, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, length of stay, and complications. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, medical and surgical complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge. The data collated were compared with series from the preceding three months. Results. There were 167 elective procedures performed in the first three weeks of the study period, prior to the first national lockdown, and 57 emergency procedures thereafter. Three patients (1.3%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. There was one death (0.45%) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection after an emergency procedure. None of the patients developed complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection after elective arthroplasty. There was no observed spike in complications during in-hospital stay or in the early postoperative period. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between pre-COVID-19 and peri-COVID-19 groups (p = 0.624). We observed a higher number of emergency procedures performed during the pandemic within our institute. Conclusion. An international cohort has reported 30-day mortality as 28.8% following orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic. There are currently no reports on clinical outcomes of patients treated with lower limb reconstructive surgery during the same period. While an effective vaccine is developed and widely accepted, it is very likely that SARS-CoV2 infection remains endemic. We believe that this report will help guide future restoration planning here in the UK and abroad. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):323–329

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic. Methods. This is a prospective study of 100 patients who were on the waiting list of a single surgeon for an elective hip or knee procedure. Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with their scheduled surgical procedure. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to define if any specific patient factors influenced decision to continue with surgery. Results. Overall, 88 patients (88%) were happy to continue with their scheduled procedure at the earliest opportunity. Patients with an ASA grade I were most likely to agree to surgery, followed by patients with ASA grades II, then those with grade III (93.3%, 88.7%, and 78.6% willingness, respectively). Patients waitlisted for an injection were least likely to consent to surgery, with just 73.7% agreeing. In all, there was a large increase in the proportion of patient willingness to continue with surgery compared to our initial study during the first wave of the pandemic. Conclusion. As COVID-19 lockdown restrictions are lifted after the second peak of the pandemic, we are seeing greater willingness to continue with scheduled orthopaedic surgery, reinforcing a change in patient perception towards having elective surgery. However, we must continue with strict COVID-19 precautions in order to minimize viral transmission as we increase our elective orthopaedic services going forward. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):865–870

Introduction. Superficial pin site infection is a common problem associated with external fixation, which has been extensively reported. However, the incidence and risk factors with regards to deep infection is rarely reported in the literature. In this study, we investigate and explore the incidence and risk factors of deep infection following circular frame surgery. For the purpose of this study, deep infection was defined as: persistent discharge or collection for which surgical intervention was recommended. Materials and Methods. Retrospective review of all patients whom underwent frame surgery between 1. st. of April 2015 to 1. st. April 2019 in our unit with a minimum of 1 year follow up following frame removal. We recorded patient demographics, patient risk factors, trauma or elective procedure, number of days the frame was in situ, location of infection and fracture pattern. Results. 304 patients were identified. 27 patients were excluded as they were lost to follow up or had their primary frame surgery as a treatment for infection. This provided us with 277 patients for analysis. Mean age was 47 years (range 9–89 years), the male to female ratio was 1.5:1 and 80% were trauma frames. 13 patients (4.69%) developed deep infection and all occurred in trauma patients. Of the 13 patients who developed deep infection, 4 had infection before frame removal and 9 occurred after frame removal. 8 deep infections occurred within a year of frame removal, 1 occurred between 1 and 2 years. Within the 13 frame procedures for trauma, 12 were periarticular multifragmentary fractures, 3 of which were open, and the remaining was an open diaphyseal fracture. The periarticular fractures were more likely to develop deep infection than diaphyseal fractures (p–0.033). 12 patients (out of 13) also had concurrent minimally invasive internal fixation with screws in very close proximity of the wires. Conclusions. The rate of deep infection following circular frame surgery appears to be low. Pooled, multicentre data would be required to analyse risk factors however multifragmentary, periarticular fracture and the requirement for additional internal fixation appears to be an associated factor

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

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

Introduction. Clinical decision support tools are software that match the input characteristics of an individual patient to an established knowledge base to create patient-specific assessments that support and better inform individualized healthcare decisions. Clinical decision support tools can facilitate better evidence-based care and offer the potential for improved treatment quality and selection, shared decision making, while also standardizing patient expectations. Methods. Predict+ is a novel, clinical decision support tool that leverages clinical data from the Exactech Equinoxe shoulder clinical outcomes database, which is composed of >11,000 shoulder arthroplasty patients using one specific implant type from more than 30 different clinical sites using standardized forms. Predict+ utilizes multiple coordinated and locked supervised machine learning algorithms to make patient-specific predictions of 7 outcome measures at multiple postoperative timepoints (from 3 months to 7 years after surgery) using as few as 19 preoperative inputs. Predict+ algorithms predictive accuracy for the 7 clinical outcome measures for each of aTSA and rTSA were quantified using the mean absolute error and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). Results. Predict+ was released in November 2020 and is currently in limited launch in the US and select international markets. Predict+ utilizes an interactive graphical user interface to facilitate efficient entry of the preoperative inputs to generate personalized predictions of 7 clinical outcome measures achieved with aTSA and rTSA. Predict+ outputs a simple, patient-friendly graphical overview of preoperative status and a personalized 2-year outcome summary of aTSA and rTSA predictions for all 7 outcome measures to aid in the preoperative patient consultation process. Additionally, Predict+ outputs a detailed line-graph view of a patient's preoperative status and their personalized aTSA, rTSA, and aTSA vs. rTSA predicted outcomes for the 7 outcome measures at 6 postoperative timepoints. For each line-graph, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) patient-satisfaction improvement thresholds are displayed to aid the surgeon in assessing improvement potential for aTSA and rTSA and also relative to an average age and gender matched patient. The initial clinical experience of Predict+ has been positive. Input of the preoperative patient data is efficient and generally completed in <5 minutes. However, continued workflow improvements are necessary to limit the occurrence of responder fatigue. The graphical user interface is intuitive and facilitated a rapid assessment of expected patient outcomes. We have not found the use of this tool to be disruptive of our clinic's workflow. Ultimately, this tool has positively shifted the preoperative consultation towards discussion of clinical outcomes data, and that has been helpful to guide a patient's understanding of what can be realistically achieved with shoulder arthroplasty. Discussion and Conclusions. Predict+ aims to improve a surgeon's ability to preoperatively counsel patients electing to undergo shoulder arthroplasty. We are hopeful this innovative tool will help align surgeon and patient expectations and ultimately improve patient satisfaction with this elective procedure. Future research is required, but our initial experience demonstrates the positive potential of this predictive tool

Introduction. While additional resources associated with direct anterior (DA) approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) such as fluoroscopy, staff, and special tables are well recognized, time consumption is not well studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze anesthesia and surgical time in DA and posterior approach THA in a large healthcare system across multiple facilities and surgeons. Methods. 3,155 unilateral primary THAs performed via DA or posterior approaches between 1/1/2017 and 06/30/2019 at nine hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) in a large metropolitan healthcare system were retrospectively reviewed. All surgeons were experienced and beyond learning curves. 247 cases were excluded to eliminate confounds. Operating room (OR) in and out times and surgical times were collected via EMR electronic and manual data extraction with verification. Multivariate statistical analyses were utilized with p<0.05 significant. Results. 1261 DA approach (43%) and 1647 posterior approach (57%) THAs were analyzed. Mean total OR time, including anesthesia and positioning, was greatest for hospital-based DA THAs (146 mins), followed by hospital posterior approach THAs (126.4 mins), ASC-based DA THAs (118.1 mins) and ASC posterior THAs (90.1 mins) (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, compared to the optimal ASC posterior approach group, the total OR time predictive model added 31 minutes per ASC DA THA, 33 minutes per hospital posterior THA, and 56 minutes for hospital DA THA (p<0.001). Similar predictive effect was observed for surgical time, which added 18 minutes per ASC-based DA THA, 22 minutes for hospital posterior THA and 29 minutes for hospital DA THA (p<0.001). Conclusion. In the COVID era, efficiency should be enhanced to maximize patient access for elective procedures and facilitate the healthcare system financial recovery. Despite equivocal clinical results, DA approach THA consumes substantially more OR time when compared to the posterior approach in both the hospital and ASC setting

The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardised assessment tools designed to record adverse events (AEs) in orthopaedic patients. The primary objective was to compare AEs recorded prospectively by orthopaedic surgeons compared to trained independent clinical reviewers. The secondary objective was to compare AEs following spine, hip, knee, and shoulder orthopaedic procedures. Over a 10-week period, three orthopaedic spine surgeons recorded AEs following all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Three orthopaedic surgeons (hip, knee, and shoulder) also recorded AEs for their elective procedures. Two independent reviewers used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs after reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses, physiotherapists). At discharge, AEs recorded by the surgeons and independent reviewers were recorded in a database. AE data for 164 patients were collected (48 spine, 52 hip, 33 knee, and 31 shoulder). Overall, 98 AEs were captured by the independent reviewers, compared to 14 captured by the surgeons. Independent reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons overall, as well as for each individual group (i.e. spine, hip, knee, shoulder) (p2), but surgeons failed to record minor events that were captured by the independent reviewers (e.g. urinary retention and cutaneous injuries; AEs Grade 0.05). AEs were reported in 21 (43.8%), 19 (36.5%), 12 (36.4%), and five (16.1%) spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients, respectively. Nearly all reported AEs required only simple or minor treatment (e.g. antibiotic, foley catheter) and had no effect on outcome. Two patients experienced AEs that required invasive or complex treatment (e.g. surgery, monitored bed) that had a temporary effect on outcome. Similar complication rates were reported in spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients. Independent reviewers reported more AEs compared to surgeons. These findings suggest that independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following orthopaedic surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs, enhance patient safety and care, and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models

Aims. The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. Methods. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed). Results. The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. Conclusion. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562–567