The Te Whatu Ora Southern catchment area covers the largest geographical region in New Zealand (over 62,000 km2) creating logistical challenges in providing timely access to emergency neck of femur (NOF) fracture surgery. Current Australian and New Zealand guidelines recommend that NoF surgery be performed within 48 hours of presentation. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes for patients with NoF fractures who present directly to a referral hospital (Southland Hospital) compared to those are transferred from rural peripheral centres. A retrospective cohort study identified 79 patients with NoF who were transferred from rural peripheral centres to a referral hospital for operative management between January 2011 to December 2020. This cohort was matched 1:1 by age and sex to patients with NoF who presently directly to the referral hospital over the same period. The primary outcome was to compare time to surgery between the groups and secondary outcomes were to compare length of hospital stay, complication rates and mortality rates at 30-days and 1-year.Introduction
Methods
The purpose of this study was to compare implant survivorship and functional outcomes in patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for acute proximal humeral fracture (PHF) with those undergoing elective RTSA in a population-based cohort study. Prospectively collected data from the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to 2021 and identified 7,277 patients who underwent RTSA. Patients were categorized by pre-operative indication, including acute PHF (10.1%), rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) (41.9%), osteoarthritis (OA) (32.2%), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (5.2%) and old traumatic sequelae (4.9%). The PHF group was compared with elective indications based on patient, implant, and operative characteristics, as well as post-operative outcomes (Oxford Shoulder Score [OSS], and revision rate) at 6 months, 5 and 10 years after surgery. Survival and functional outcome analyses were adjusted by age, sex, ASA class and surgeon experience.Introduction
Methods
Recent technological advancements have led to the introduction of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty to improve the accuracy and precision of bony resections and implant position. However, the in vivo accuracy is not widely reported. The primary objective of this study is to determine the accuracy and precision of a cut block positioning robotic arm. Seventy-seven patients underwent total knee arthroplasty with various workflows and alignment targets by three arthroplasty-trained surgeons with previous experience using the ROSA® Knee System. Accuracy and precision were determined by measuring the difference between various workflow time points, including the final pre-operative plan, validated resection angle, and post-operative radiographs. The mean difference between the measurements determined accuracy, and the standard deviation represented precision.Introduction
Method
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections.Aim
Methods
