Aim. Restarting elective services presents a challenge to restore and improve many of the planned patient care pathways which have been suspended during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant backlog of planned elective work has built up representing a considerable volume of patient need. We aimed to investigate the health status, quality of life, and the impact of delay for patients whose referrals and treatment for symptomatic joint arthritis had been delayed as a result of the response to COVID-19. Methods. We interviewed 111 patients referred to our elective outpatient service and whose first appointments had been cancelled as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results. Patients reported significant impacts on their health status and quality of life. Overall, 79 (71.2%) patients reported a further deterioration in their condition while waiting, with seven (6.3%) evaluating their health status as ‘worse than death’. Conclusions. Waiting lists are clearly not benign and how to prioritize patients, their level of need, and access to assessment and treatment must be more sophisticated than simply relying on the length of time a patient has been waiting. This paper supports the contention that patients awaiting elective joint arthroplasty report significant impacts on their quality of life and health status. This should be given appropriate weight when patients are prioritized for surgery as part of the recovery of services following the COVID-19 pandemic. Elective surgery should not be seen as optional surgery—patients do not see it in this way

Our aim was to assess the impact of the increasing number of patients on orthopaedic waiting lists on general practitioners in New Zealand.

A 10-point questionnaire was developed in association with the General Practice Department at the Wellington School of Medicine, and mailed to 250 randomly chosen general practitioners around New Zealand. One hundred and fifty general practitioners returned the survey.

Sixty three per cent of general practitioners reported having between eleven and thirty patients on an orthopaedic waiting list in their practice. 85% of general practitioners reported spending up to an extra 6 hours per month looking after problems caused by having to provide extra care for the patients. In 90% of cases general practitioners reported that their patients required considerably greater community support in the form of extra physiotherapy, meals-on-wheels and occupational therapy. In 138 cases, general practitioners reported greater levels of stress in the families of patients on waiting lists. The majority of general practitioners reported an increased need for analgesia and night sedation during the period on a waiting list. They also reported substantial increases in paperwork necessary to access social supports.

This study documents the burden on general practitioners produced by the increasing waiting lists, and the re-alignment of waiting lists. This burden is reducing the general practitioner’s ability to deal with routine general practice problems, and likely adversely affects the health of other New Zealanders. There is a need for a study of patients on waiting lists to further assess their needs.

In the years 1990–1993, in an effort to reduce waiting list time, a small number of patients were sent from Exeter to hospitals in London to undergo elective total hip replacement. No medium- or long-term follow-up was arranged. Our aim was to audit the outcome of these hip replacements.

Review of the records of the referring medical practices, Regional Health Authority, local Orthopaedic Hospital and the distant centres at which the surgery was performed has identified 31 cases. A total of 27 hip replacements in 24 patients were available for clinical and radiological review.

12 (44%) hips have so far required revision surgery, at a mean of 6.5 years. Of these, three (11%) have been for deep infection. A further three hips (11%) are radiologically loose and are being closely monitored. Two patients (7%) suffered permanent sciatic nerve palsy.

Patients whose surgery was performed locally over a similar time period have a published failure rate of only 4.6%. The causes for such a difference in outcome were analysed and include surgical technique, implant selection and absence of follow-up. In the light of this evidence, we would like to urge the government to address waiting list problems by investing in the local infrastructure. Expanding those facilities where properly audited and fully accountable surgeons operate must be the way forward.

Introduction and Aims: In the years 1990–1993, in an effort to reduce waiting list time, a small number of patients were sent from Exeter to hospitals in London to undergo elective total hip replacement. No medium- or long-term follow-up was arranged. Our aim was to audit the outcome of these hip replacements.

Method: Review of the records of the referring medical practices, Regional Health Authority, local Orthopaedic Hospital and the distant centres at which the surgery was performed has identified 31 cases. A total of 27 hip replacements in 24 patients were available for clinical and radiological review.

Results: Twelve (44%) hips have so far required revision surgery, at a mean of 6.5 years. Of these, three (11%) have been for deep infection. A further three hips (11%) are radiologically loose and are being closely monitored. Two patients (7%) suffered permanent sciatic nerve palsy.

Conclusion: Patients whose surgery was performed locally over a similar time period have a published failure rate of only 4.6%. The causes for such a difference in outcome were analysed and include surgical technique, implant selection and absence of follow-up. In the light of this evidence, we would like to urge the government to address waiting list problems by investing in the local infrastructure. Expanding those facilities where properly audited and fully accountable surgeons operate must be the way forward.

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed–4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ2=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed −4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ²=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.

Aims

Due to widespread cancellations in elective orthopaedic procedures, the number of patients on waiting list for surgery is rising. We aim to determine and quantify if disparities exist between inpatient and day-case orthopaedic waiting list numbers; we also aim to determine if there is a ‘hidden burden’ that already exists due to reductions in elective secondary care referrals.

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.

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.