Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

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

Introduction. Despite improvement in implants and surgical techniques up to 20% of Total Knee Arthroplasty TKA patients continue to report dissatisfaction. The ATTUNE Knee System was designed to provide better patellar tracking and stability through the mid-range of flexion and therefore improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Aims. The aims of this study were to assess patient outcomes in a consecutive series of ATTUNE TKA and ensure early results were comparable to other TKA systems in Australia. Methods. Between September 2014 and December 2015, 332 ATTUNE TKR's were implanted locally. All patients in our learning curve from case 1 were included. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years (range: 2.0–3.2). Revision, complications and postoperative ROM was collected. Patient reported outcome was measured using the Multi-Attribute Arthritis Prioritization Tool (MAPT) questionnaire. Revision rates were cross checked with an AOANJRR Ad Hoc report. Results. Revision rate of the ATTUNE TKR was lower than national rates, however not statistically different (1.6% vs. 2.1%) (p=0.508). Postoperative MAPT scores were significantly lower after TKR (median 63.4 vs. 0.0) (p<0.001). A total of 86.7% patients had a good outcome postoperative TKR (MAPT≤ 20). Conclusion. Our findings suggest the ATTUNE TKR has comparable revision rates to other TKRs currently available in Australia. Furthermore, patient reported outcome was high 2.8 years postoperatively, with 85% patient satisfaction

Background. Delay in access to primary total hip (THA) arthroplasty continues to pose a substantial burden to patients and society in publicly funded healthcare systems. The majority of strategies to decrease wait times have focused on the time from surgical consult to surgery, however a large proportion of total wait time for these patients is the time from primary care referral to surgical consultation. Prioritization scoring tools and patient reported outcome measures are being used in an attempt to ration limited resources in the face of increasing demand. However, to our knowledge, no study has investigated whether a referral Oxford Hip Score (OHS) could be used to triage non-surgical referrals appropriately, in an effort to increase timely access to specialists for patients that are candidates for total joint replacement (TJR). Purpose. 1) To determine if a referral OHS has the predictive ability to discriminate when a hip patient will be deemed surgical versus conservative by the surgeon during their first consultation 2) To identify an OHS cut-off point that can be used to accurately predict when a primary THA referral will be deemed conservative by the consultant surgeon during the first consultation. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive THA consultations from a single surgeon's tertiary, high volume practice over a 3-year period. Patients with a pre-consultation OHS, BMI <41, and no absolute contraindication to TJR were included. Consultation were categorized into two groups based on surgeon's decision, those that were offered THR during their first consultation (operative) versus those that were not (conservative). Baseline demographic data and OHS were abstracted. Variables of interest were compared between cohorts using the exact chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to measure association between pre-consult OHS and the surgeon's decision. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative OHS that identified whether or not a referral was deemed conservative. Results. The study 478 hips (388 patients) with a median OHS of 22 (IQR 16–29). Median pre-consultation OHS demonstrated clinically and statistically significant differences between the surgical versus conservative cohorts (p<0.001). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between OHS and a patient being deemed surgical or conservative was strong for the OHS at −0.62 (95% CI −0.67 to −0.56). The ROC AUC values for hip consults (0.87, 95% CI 0.84–0.91) was good, indicating that pre-consult OHS has predictive ability to discriminate a surgeon's decision of surgical versus conservative. One plausible conservative threshold that optimized sensitivity and NPV for hips is OHS >34 (sensitivity=0.997 NPV=0.978). ROC analysis identified severable potential lower, depending on weight of prioritization of sensitivity, specificity, and NPV. Conclusion. Referral OHS demonstrate good ability to discriminate when a knee or hip TJR referral will be deemed non-surgical versus surgical at their first consultation in a single surgeon's practice. Multiple potential OHS thresholds can be applied as a tool to decrease wait times for primary THR. However, a cost analysis would aid in identifying the optimal cut-off score, and these findings need to be validated with multi-surgeon/center studies before they can be broadly applied

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to elective orthopaedic services. The primary objective of this study was to examine changes in functional scores in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Secondary objectives were to investigate differences between these groups and identify those in a health state ‘worse than death’ (WTD).

Acute bone and joint infections in children are serious, and misdiagnosis can threaten limb and life. Most young children who present acutely with pain, limping, and/or loss of function have transient synovitis, which will resolve spontaneously within a few days. A minority will have a bone or joint infection. Clinicians are faced with a diagnostic challenge: children with transient synovitis can safely be sent home, but children with bone and joint infection require urgent treatment to avoid complications. Clinicians often respond to this challenge by using a series of rudimentary decision support tools, based on clinical, haematological, and biochemical parameters, to differentiate childhood osteoarticular infection from other diagnoses. However, these tools were developed without methodological expertise in diagnostic accuracy and do not consider the importance of imaging (ultrasound scan and MRI). There is wide variation in clinical practice with regard to the indications, choice, sequence, and timing of imaging. This variation is most likely due to the lack of evidence concerning the role of imaging in acute bone and joint infection in children. We describe the first steps of a large UK multicentre study, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, which seeks to integrate definitively the role of imaging into a decision support tool, developed with the assistance of individuals with expertise in the development of clinical prediction tools.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):227–229.

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.

Aims

The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures.

Aims

High-quality clinical research in children’s orthopaedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. This study used a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in children’s orthopaedics.