Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) is validated to predict mortality after fragility neck of femur fractures (NOF). Risk stratification supports informed consent, peri-operative optimisation and case prioritisation. With the inclusion of fragility distal femur fractures (DFF) in the BPT, increasing attention is being placed on the outcome of these injuries. Developing on the lessons learnt over the past decades in NOF management is key. This study assesses the validity of the NHFS in predicting mortality after fragility DFFs. A multi-centre study of 3 high volume fragility fracture units was performed via a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected databases. Patients aged 60 years-of-age who presented with AO 33.A/B/C native DFF, or V.3.A/B periprosthetic DFF over an 86-month period between September 2014 and December 2021 and underwent surgical treatment were eligible for inclusion. Open and/or polytrauma (ISS >15) were excluded. All operations were performed or supervised by Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeons and were reviewed peri-operatively by a 7-day MDT. Patients with a NHFS of gt;=5 were stratified into a high-risk of 30-day mortality cohort, with all others being œlow-risk. 285 patients were eligible for inclusion with 92 considered to be low-risk of 30-day mortality, these tended to be younger female patients admitted from their own homes. 30-day mortality was 0% in the low-risk cohort and 6.2% (12/193) in the high-risk group. 1-year mortality was 8.7% (8/92) and 35.7% (69/193) in the low and high-risk groups respectively. Area Under the Curve (AUC) analyses of Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves demonstrated the greatest ability to predict mortality at 30-days for the high-risk cohort (0.714). The NHFS demonstrates a good ability to predict 30-day mortality in those patients with a NHFS =5 after a surgically managed fragility DFF. With comparable mortality outcomes to those documented from fragility NOF

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes. The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. ](. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. )). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL). For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months. These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required

Introduction. The knee is the most commonly injured joint in sporting accidents, leading to substantial disability, time off work and morbidity (1). Treatment and assessment vary around the UK (2), whilst there remains a limited number of high-quality randomised controlled trials assessing first time, acute soft tissue knee injuries (3,4). As the clinical and financial burden rises (5), vital answers are required to improve prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and delivery of care. In association with the James Lind Alliance, this BASK, BOSTAA and BOA supported prioritising exercise was undertaken over a year. Methods. The James Lind Alliance methodology was followed; a modified nominal group technique was used in the final workshop. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals to submit their uncertainties regarding soft tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and delivery of care. Seventy-four questions were formulated to encompass common concerns. These were checked against best available evidence. Following the interim survey, 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritisation by groups of healthcare professionals, patients, and carers. Results. Over 1000 questions were submitted initially. Twenty-seven were taken forward to the final workshop following the surveys. Nearly half of the responses were from patients/carers. The Top 10 (Figure 1) includes prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation questions, reflecting the concerns of patients, carers, and a wider multidisciplinary team. Conclusion. This validated process has generated an important, wide- ranging Top 10 priorities for future soft tissue knee injury research. These have been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research and are now available for researchers to investigate. The final 27 questions which were taken to the final workshop have also been published on the James Lind Alliance website. Research into these questions will lead to future high-quality research, thus improving patient care & outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Abstract. Introduction. The knee is the most commonly injured joint in sporting accidents. They cause substantial disability, time off work and long-term problems. There remains a limited number of high-quality randomised controlled trials assessing first time, acute soft tissue knee injuries. Key areas requiring answers include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and delivery of care. In association with the James Lind Alliance, this BASK, BOSTAA and BOA supported prioritising exercise was undertaken over a year. Methodology. The James Lind Alliance methodology was followed. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals to submit their uncertainties regarding soft tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and delivery of care. Over 1000 questions were submitted. Seventy-four questions were formulated to encompass common concerns. These were checked against best available evidence. Following the interim survey, 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked and scored in multiple rounds of prioritisation by groups of healthcare professionals, patients and carers. Results. The Top 10 includes prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation questions, reflecting the concerns of patients, carers and a wider multidisciplinary team. These will be presented and explained. Conclusion. This validated process has generated an important Top 10, which has been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research. All 27 questions will be published, thus being available for researchers to investigate. The questions in the Top 10 will lead to future high quality research, thus improving patient outcomes

There has been extensive research into neck of femur fractures in the elderly. Fragility non-hip femoral fractures share many of the same challenges [1]. Surgical management is complex, patients are frail and mortality rates have been reported as high as 38% [2]. Despite this, relatively little data is available evaluating the level of MDT care provided to non-hip femoral fractures. This audit aimed to evaluate the standard of MDT care provided for patients with non-hip femoral fractures according to the NHFD key performance indicators. The following fractures were included in the dataset: distal femoral, femoral shaft and peri-prosthetic femoral. Patients under 65 were excluded. Data was retrospectively collected using post-operative and medical documentation. Performance was assessed according to five key performance indicators:. Did orthogeriatrics review the patient within 72-hours?. Was surgery performed within 36-hours?. Was the patient weight bearing post-operatively?. Was a confusion assessment completed?. Was the patient discharged home?. 38 patients met the inclusion criteria. 84% of patients were seen by orthogeriatrics within 72 hours of admission. 32% of patients were operated on within 36-hours of admission, with time to theatre exceeding 36-hours in 92% of peri-prosthetic fractures. 37% of patients were not advised to full weight bear post operatively. 84% of patients received a confusion assessment whilst 61% of patients were discharged to their prior place of living. Our results suggest that non-hip femoral fractures do not receive the same standard of MDT care as neck of femur fractures. Greater prioritisation of resources should be given to this patient subset so that care is equivalent to hip-fracture patients. Time to surgery is a particular area for improvement, particularly in peri-prosthetic fractures, a trend that is mirrored nationally. Greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging full-weight bearing post-operatively to prevent post-surgical complications

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 New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) was established in 1999. However, ethnicity data was not recorded by prioritisation in line with Ministry of Health (MoH) recommendations. Recently, cross-referencing with MoH updated ethnicity data for all 326,150 entries in the NZJR database. The objective of this national level, population study was to identify any ethnic disparities in access and outcome for Māori for primary total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) for Osteoarthritis. The utilisation rate for THA and TKAs were calculated for the Māori and NZ European population from all data in the NZJR and Census data in 2001, 2006, 2013 and 2018. Utilisation rate was reported separately for four age groups (<55, 55-64, 65-74, >75) over four time periods (1999-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014, 2015-2020). Revision rate, 6 months and 5-year Oxford scores were adjusted for age, sex and BMI, then compared between groups. In every age group and at all but one time point, significant under-utilisation of TKA was observed in Māori. For THAs, Māori had similar utilisation rates in the <55 and 55-64 age groups, but significantly lower utilisation rates in all other age groups. When adjusted for age, sex and BMI, no significant differences in revision rates were observed between Māori and NZ Europeans for THAs (HR 0.939, P 0.417) or TKAs (HR 1.129, P 0.149). Adjusted 6 months and 5-year Oxford scores were significantly higher in NZ Europeans, however, the maximum difference was less than 3 points and is unlikely to be clinically significant. Despite the same risk of being diagnosed with osteoarthritis, Māori are less likely to undergo THA and TKA. There are no clinically significant differences in outcomes post arthroplasty between Māori and NZ Europeans. Further research is required to investigate causes for lower utilisation in Māori

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.

Background. Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure research outcomes are patient-centred and to maximise research value and impact. The Musculoskeletal (MSK) Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across MSK disorders. Methods. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHRNI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders were utilised. The MSKD RAG identified, through consensus, four research Domains: Mechanisms of Disease; Diagnosis and Impact; Living Well with MSK disorders and Successful Translation. Following ethical approval, the research priority exercise involved four stages and two surveys, to: 1) gather research uncertainties; 2) consolidate these; 3) score uncertainties using agreed criteria of importance and impact on a score of 1–10; and 4) analyse scoring, for prioritisation. Results. The first survey had 209 respondents, who described 1290 research uncertainties, which were refined into 68 research questions. 285 people responded to the second survey. The largest group of respondents represented patients and carers, followed by researchers and healthcare professionals. A ranked list was produced, with scores ranging between 12 and 18. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better targeting of treatments, early diagnosis, prevention and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. Conclusions. For the first time, we have summarised priorities for research across MSKD, from discovery science to applied clinical and health research, including translation. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities. Conflict of Interest: None. Sources of funding: We thank the funder, Versus Arthritis for their support of the research advisory groups and this activity

Abstract. Introduction. In 2020, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was extended to capture data from patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) with plans to include these patients in Best Practice Tarif. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of PPFF in England and Wales, with a particular focus on fractures occurring around the femoral component of knee prostheses. Methodology. This population-based observational cohort study utilised open-access data available from the NHFD. Patients aged over 60, admitted to an acute hospital in England or Wales with a PPFF, within the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPFF in England and Wales. The secondary outcome was the treatment received. Results. We identified 2606 patients with PPFF from 135 hospitals. Of these, a total of 578 fractures occurred around the femoral component of a knee implant. These were classified as Vancouver A (epicondylar, n=77), B (involving implant/cement, n=166) and C (proximal to implant/cement, n=335). Internal fixation was the most employed treatment, used in 352 cases. Revision arthroplasty was performed in 80 cases, and 100 were managed non-operatively. Only 28% of operated PPFF went to theatre within 36 hours but nearly 90% had orthogeriatrician review within 72 hours. Conclusion. Eighty six percent of patients with PPFF were treated with non-revision surgery and would not be recorded in the National Joint Registry. In response, we support calls for the prioritisation of further research into the prevention and management of PPFF around the knee

Abstract. Introduction. Inter-prosthetic femoral fractures (IPFF) are fractures occurring between ipsilateral hip and knee implants or fixation devices. In 2020, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was extended to capture data from patients with peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF), including those specifically with IPFF. This study aims to describe the epidemiology and treatment of IPFF in England and Wales. Methodology. This population-based observational cohort study utilised open-access data available from the NHFD. Patients aged over 60, admitted to an acute hospital in England or Wales with an IPFF, within the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 were included. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of IPFF in England and Wales. The secondary outcome was the treatment received. Results. Of 2606 patients admitted with PPFF, a total of 133 fractures occurred between ipsilateral hip and knee implants. Internal fixation was performed most frequently, in 87 cases. Revision arthroplasty was performed in 15 cases (hip n=10, knee n=5). A total of 20 patients were managed non-operatively, and three underwent primary arthroplasty (hip n=2, knee n=1). Conclusion. As the proportion of patients living with hip and knee implants continues to increase, it is expected that so too will the incidence of IPFF. This study is the first to estimate the incidence of IPFF in England and Wales. This is likely an underestimate of the true incidence and so we support calls for the prioritisation of further research into the epidemiology, prevention, and management of IPFF

Introduction. Traditionally, limb reconstruction physiotherapy consisted of face to face group rehabilitation. During the COVID-19 pandemic OP physiotherapy service provision was significantly reduced and delivery methods limited due to staff redeployment, service prioritisation and restriction of footfall within the hospital. A virtual exercise group for acute limb reconstruction patients was set up to maintain contact and clinical support. Materials and Methods. A small single centre study was performed over two 4 week periods capturing the experience of 35 patients. A patient reported questionnaire was used and revised post-pandemic to gather quantitative and qualitative data about the patients experience of the Limb Reconstruction Physiotherapy Service at each point in time. The qualitative data was analysed using an inductive thematic analysis. Results. Four key themes emerged from the qualitative data: Sense of community through shared experience, support & encouragement from staff and peers, increasing confidence with the frame – fostering independence, the challenging nature of the class. Recommendation of the service, positive functional impact and overall experience remained >88% of the population (face to face & virtual). Conclusions. The results highlight the benefits of group physiotherapy (face to face & virtual) to patients recovery with improvements in confidence, mobility, function, psychosocial factors and overall QoL. Peer support is paramount in the rehabilitation and progression of limb reconstruction patients. Virtual platforms for rehabilitation are helpful in maintaining participation and should be offered where possible to facilitate ongoing inclusion, however face to face contact is preferred

Abstract. Aim. With resumption of elective spine surgery services following the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multi-centre BASS collaborative study to examine the clinical outcomes of surgeries. Methods. Prospective data was collected from eight spinal centres in the first month of operating following restoration of elective spine surgery following the first wave. Primary outcomes measures were the 30-day mortality rate and postoperative Covid-19 infection rate. Secondary outcomes analysed were the surgical, medical adverse events and length of inpatient stay. Results. 257 patients (128 Male) with an age range of 2–88 years formed the study cohort. The average workload from each unit was 32(range 16–101) with 118 procedures (46%) done as category 3 prioritisation level (Procedures performed in < 3 month). 87% of patients were low-medium “risk stratification” category. 195 patients (75.8%) isolated for two weeks preoperatively and all but four patients had COVID-19 negative test prior to surgery. None of the patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection nor was any mortality related to COVID-19 in the 30 day follow up period, with 25 patients having been tested for symptoms. 32 patients (12%) developed a total of 34 complications with 19/34 being grade 1–2 Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Median LOS 5.2 days and 78.4 % patients stayed less than a week. Conclusions. As per our study safe and effective planned spinal surgical services can be restored avoiding viral transmission, with adherence to national guidelines and COVID-secure pathways tailored according to the resources of the individual spinal units

One potential approach to addressing the current hip and knee arthroplasty backlog is via adoption of surgical prioritisation methods, such as use of pre-operative health related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment. We set out to determine whether dichotomization using a previously identified bimodal EuroQol Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) distribution could be used to triage waiting lists. 516 patients had data collected regarding demographics, perioperative variables and patient reported outcome measures (pre-operative & 1-year post-operative EQ-5D-3L and Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS). Patients were split into two equal groups based on pre-operative EQ-5D Time Trade-Off (TTO) scores and compared (Group1 [worse HRQOL] = −0.239 to 0.487; Group2 [better HRQOL] = 0.516 to 1 (best)). The EQ5D TTO is a widely used and validated HRQOL measure that generates single values for different combinations of health-states based upon how individuals compare x years of healthy living to x years of illness. We identified that those in Group1 had significantly greater improvement in post-operative EQ-5D TTO scores compared to Group2 (Median 0.67vs.0.19; p<0.0001 respectively), as well as greater improvement in OHS/OKS (Mean 22.4vs16.4; p<0.0001 respectively). Those in Group2 were significantly less likely to achieve EQ-5D MCID attainment (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.07–0.23; p<0.0001) with a trend towards lower OHS/OKS MCID attainment (OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37–1.19; p=0.168). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events. These finding suggest that a pre-operative EQ-5D cut-off of ≤0.487 for hip and knee arthroplasty prioritisation may help to maximise clinical utility and cost-effectiveness in a limited resource setting post COVID-19

Background. In the United Kingdom, over 1 million elective surgeries were cancelled due to COVID-19, resulting in over 1.9 million people now waiting more than 4 months for their procedure – 3x the number last year. To address this backlog, the healthcare service has been asked to develop locally-designed ‘COVID-light’ facilities. In our local system, 822 patients awaited orthopaedic surgery when elective surgery was permitted to resume. The phased return of service required a careful and pragmatic prioritisation of patients, to protect resources, patients, and healthcare workers. Aims. We aim to describe how the COVID-19 Algorithm for Resuming Elective Surgery (CARES) was used to consider 1) Which type of operation and patient should be prioritised? and 2) Which patients are safe to undergo surgery? The central tenets to this were patient safety, predicted efficacy of the surgery, and delivering compassionate care by considering biopsychosocial factors. Methods. Orthopaedic surgeons were provided with details of patients on their waiting list. They prioritised patients into those for surgery within 1 month (. Urgent. : e.g. arthroplasty for rapid deterioration from avascular necrosis or infection, or in the lowest quartile of Oxford Hip/Knee/Shoulder scores), < 3 months (. Soon. : e.g. revision or second-stage arthroplasty), and > 3 months (arthroplasty for end-stage arthrosis). The surgeon-led stratification was then reviewed by a multidisciplinary surgical prioritisation team, including anaesthetists and operating theatre managers, to consider medical history, the need for additional intraoperative services (such as cardiac physiologists, or specialist equipment requiring industry ‘reps’), and the risk of postoperative deterioration requiring HDU/ICU. The MDT also reviewed what the impact of disease and further delay may have on a patient's mental health, ability to work, or ability to care for dependents. The CARES protocol created an aggregate score for efficacy, compassion, safety and surgical risk to equitably rank patients. Results. The implementation of CARES stratified the waiting list into 122 (14.8%) patients requiring urgent surgery, with high likely health-gain or biopsychosocial gain, of whom 76 were low-risk and 46 were high-risk – medically moribund or complex. There were 232 (28.2%) patients required surgery within 3 months, and 468 (57.1%) patients were deemed safe to delay for > 3months. Alongside i) staff- and patient-screening, ii) adequate personal protective equipment, and iii) increased used of regional anaesthesia, the healthcare system was reconfigured, to create two surgical pathways. ‘Green Well’ patients were scheduled for surgery at a clean site – an elective surgical centre with no on-site HDU/ICU. ‘Green High-Risk’ patients underwent surgery at the general hospital (with on-site HDU/ICU) in operating rooms (ORs) which were physically segregated from ‘Red’ ORs reserved for COVID-19+ or trauma patients. In 6 weeks, 164 patients underwent surgery with no transmission of COVID-19 between patients or staff. Conclusion. Our healthcare system safely resumed elective surgery as early as the top 2% of hospitals nationally. This was facilitated by CARES stratification (which factors safety, efficacy, and compassion), MDT-led decisions, and surgical pathway reconfiguration. This generalisable, validated approach could be widely applied to facilitate restarts globally

Aims

Our rural orthopaedic service has undergone service restructure during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to sustain hip fracture care. All adult trauma care has been centralised to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for assessment and medical input, before transferring those requiring operative intervention to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital. We aim to review the impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture workload and service changes upon management of hip fractures.

Introduction

The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims

To evaluate safety outcomes and patient satisfaction of the re-introduction of elective orthopaedic surgery on ‘green’ (non-COVID-19) sites during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims

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