Aims. The new COVID-19 variant was reported by the authorities of the UK to the World Health Organization (WHO) on 14 December 2020. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and nosocomial infection rates in major trauma and orthopaedic patients comparing the first and second wave of COVID-19 infection. Methods. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected trauma database was reviewed at a level 1 major trauma centre from 1 December 2020 to 18 February 2021 looking at demographics, clinical characteristics, and nosocomial infections and compared to our previously published first wave data (26 January 2020 to 14 April 2020). Results. From 1 December 2020 to 18 February 2021, 522 major trauma patients were identified with a mean age of 54.6 years, and 53.4% (n = 279) were male. Common admissions were falls (318; 60.9%) and road traffic accidents (RTAs; 71 (13.6%); 262 of these patients (50.2%) had surgery. In all, 75 patients (14.4%) tested positive for COVID-19, of which 51 (68%) were nosocomial. Surgery on COVID-19 patients increased to 46 (61.3%) in the second wave compared to 13 (33.3%) in the first wave (p = 0.005). ICU admissions of patients with COVID-19 infection increased from two (5.1%) to 16 (20.5%), respectively (p = 0.024). Second wave mortality was 6.1% (n = 32) compared to first wave of 4.7% (n = 31). Cardiovascular (CV) disease (35.9%; n = 14); p = 0.027) and dementia (17.9%; n = 7); p = 0.030) were less in second wave than the first. Overall, 13 patients (25.5%) were Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME), and five (9.8%) had a BMI > 30 kg/m. 2. The mean time from admission to diagnosis of COVID-19 was 13.9 days (3 to 44). Overall, 12/75 (16%) of all COVID-19 patients died. Conclusion. During the second wave, COVID-19 infected three-times more patients. There were double the number of operative cases, and quadruple the cases of ICU admissions. The patients were younger with less dementia and CV disease with lower mortality. Concomitant COVID-19 and the necessity of major trauma surgery showed 13% mortality in the second wave compared with 15.4% in the first wave. In contrast to the literature, we showed a high percentage of nosocomial infection, normal BMI, and limited BAME infections. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):661–670

Introduction: A multiplicity of factors can increase the risk of nosocomial infection in polytraumatized patients. Infections in the hospital environment are still a serious public health hazard. Nonetheless, only a few studies have been published on nosocomial infections in poly-traumatized pediatric patients. Materials and methods: A 4-month prospective study was carried out of patients admitted to the traumatology department and to the pediatric intensive-care unit between July and November 2003 in order to assess all the procedures the patients were subjected to. Infections were considered to be nosocomial when they appeared 72 hours after admission. Results: 121 patients were included in the study. 77% (93) were boys and 23% (28) girls, with a mean age of 10.6 years. The number of infected patients was 6 (5%) and the number of episodes of nosocomial infection diagnosed was 12. 33% of infected patients had a single episode and 67% had two or more infections. When considering the intrinsic risk factors considered in the study one should mention that 10% of patients who were admitted were in a coma, 4,1% had a respiratory syndrome and 2% were diagnosed as obese. The most frequently isolated micro-organisms in this group of patients were Gram positive bacteria (50%), while the most common pathogen was coagulase-negative staphylococcus (85,7%). Conclusions: The paper reveals the profile of nosocomial infections in ploytraumatized pediatric patients in our hospital environment and defines their connection with the use of invasive measures as well as with the length of the patient’s hospital stay

To prevent nosocomial transmission (NT) of multiresistent germs (MRG) the German Robert Koch Institute (RKI) recommends to isolate patients with MRG. At a so-called normal ward isolating patients is a challenging and stressful procedure for both patients and hospital staff. The present study proposes the hypothesis that, compared to normal wards, an isolation ward reduces the nosocomial infection rate. After an isolation ward with twelve beds has been established in 2005, patients with MRG on the wards of the department for spinal cord injury as well as on the isolation ward were monitored using a prospective screening and meeting the requirements of the RKI. Apart from detecting transmitter of MRG the NT of these bacteria was identified and registered between 2006 and 2013. The total length of a patients stay in the hospital, the number of isolation days and the rate of NTs were documented. The quotient of MRG load per ward and the number of NTs per ward were compared. In the investigation period of eight years 262175 patient days, 33416 isolation days and 33 transmissions were registered. On the spinal cord injury ward 223167 of the patient days, 1120 of the isolation days and 29 of the NTs were documented. On the isolation ward 39008 of the patient days and 32296 of the isolation days with four of the transmissions were registered. The mean load of MRG resulted from the quotient of the number of days with MRG per 100 patient days. The effective nosocomial frequency of transmission resulted from the quotient of the mean load of MRG to the number of transmissions. As a result, the frequency of transmission on the isolation ward was significantly lower (p=0,001) in comparison to the spinal cord injury ward. The presented results suggest that, despite multiple higher loads of MRG, constructional measures combined with contact isolation facilitate a reduction of NT rates of MRG. The reservation must be made, however, that in case of known MRG the screening was performed under isolation conditions, with unkown MRG without meeting requirements of isolation. The present comparison of NT rates on an isolation ward and a normal spinal cord injury ward emphasizes the importance and function of an isolation ward through constructional (physical) separation and pooling of professional competency for successful management of MRG in healthcare facilities

Aims. The primary aim was to determine the influence of COVID-19 on 30-day mortality following hip fracture. Secondary aims were to determine predictors of COVID-19 status on presentation and later in the admission; the rate of hospital acquired COVID-19; and the predictive value of negative swabs on admission. Methods. A nationwide multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients presenting with a hip fracture to 17 Scottish centres in March and April 2020. Demographics, presentation blood tests, COVID-19 status, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, management, length of stay, and 30-day mortality were recorded. Results. In all, 78/833 (9.4%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. The 30-day survival of patients with COVID-19 was significantly lower than for those without (65.4% vs 91%; p < 0.001). Diagnosis of COVID-19 within seven days of admission (likely community acquired) was independently associated with male sex (odds ratio (OR) 2.34, p = 0.040, confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 5.25) and symptoms of COVID-19 (OR 15.56, CI 6.61 to 36.60, p < 0.001). Diagnosis of COVID-19 made between seven and 30 days of admission to hospital (likely hospital acquired) was independently associated with male sex (OR 1.73, CI 1.05 to 2.87, p = 0.032), Nottingham Hip Fracture Score ≥ 7 (OR 1.91, CI 1.09 to 3.34, p = 0.024), pulmonary disease (OR 1.68, CI 1.00 to 2.81, p = 0.049), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ 3 (OR 2.37, CI 1.13 to 4.97, p = 0.022), and length of stay ≥ nine days (OR 1.98, CI 1.18 to 3.31, p = 0.009). A total of 38 (58.5%) COVID-19 cases were probably hospital acquired infections. The false-negative rate of a negative swab on admission was 0% in asymptomatic patients and 2.9% in symptomatic patients. Conclusion. COVID-19 was independently associated with a three times increased 30-day mortality rate. Nosocomial transmission may have accounted for approximately half of all cases during the first wave of the pandemic. Identification of risk factors for having COVID-19 on admission or acquiring COVID-19 in hospital may guide pathways for isolating or shielding patients respectively. Length of stay was the only modifiable risk factor, which emphasizes the importance of high-quality and timely care in this patient group. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):888–897

The study aimed to determine if THR deep infection rate correlated with the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme (NINSS) data on the surgical site infection (SSI) rate in our institution. Deep infection is a serious complication of hip replacement but presents late. It has recently been reported that 10% of superficial infections develop deep prosthetic infections. NINSS data could therefore be used to predict a unit’s infection risk. This District General Hospital has only recently entered NINSS. In the first quarter of 2001, NINSS reported an 11.9% surgical site infection rate in THRS performed in this unit. A clinical audit of all the primary THRs done between 1/4/94 – 9/9/2001, using revision surgery as the end point, was conducted to determine the true deep infection rate. Patients were identified using the OPCS coding system database and a casenote review was performed on all revision hip operations done locally. A search for our primary THRs that underwent revision surgery at the regional tertiary referral centre was completed to avoid omissions secondary to migration. Of 1258 primary THRS, there were 13 revisions (1%) of which 2 were done for infection (0.16%). NINSS data placed our unit on the 90th centile for infection risk but our historical true deep infection rate of 0.16% compares favourably with the Swedish and Trent hip registry rates of 0.58% and 1.4% respectively. We therefore urge careful interpretation of NINSS data and argue against its use in the media. The quarterly reporting of SSIs may be too short to play a role in ranking hospitals but may be helpful in prophylactic antibiotic selection

Aims. The first death in the UK caused by COVID-19 occurred on 5 March 2020. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of major trauma and orthopaedic patients admitted in the early COVID-19 era. Methods. A prospective trauma registry was reviewed at a Level 1 Major Trauma Centre. We divided patients into Group A, 40 days prior to 5 March 2020, and into Group B, 40 days after. Results. A total of 657 consecutive trauma and orthopaedic patients were identified with a mean age of 55 years (8 to 98; standard deviation (SD) 22.52) and 393 (59.8%) were males. In all, 344 (approximately 50%) of admissions were major trauma. Group A had 421 patients, decreasing to 236 patients in Group B (36%). Mechanism of injury (MOI) was commonly a fall in 351 (52.4%) patients, but road traffic accidents (RTAs) increased from 56 (13.3%) in group A to 51 (21.6%) in group B (p = 0.030). ICU admissions decreased from 26 (6.2%) in group A to 5 (2.1%) in group B. Overall, 39 patients tested positive for COVID-19 with mean age of 73 years (28 to 98; SD 17.99) and 22 (56.4%) males. Common symptoms were dyspnoea, dry cough, and pyrexia. Of these patients, 27 (69.2%) were nosocomial infections and two (5.1%) of these patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission with 8/39 mortality (20.5%). Of the patients who died, 50% were older and had underlying comorbidities (hypertension and cardiovascular disease, dementia, arthritis). Conclusion. Trauma admissions decreased in the lockdown phase with an increased incidence of RTAs. Nosocomial infection was common in 27 (69.2%) of those with COVID-19. Symptoms and comorbidities were consistent with previous reports with noted inclusion of dementia and arthritis. The mortality rate of trauma and COVID-19 was 20.5%, mainly in octogenarians, and COVID-19 surgical mortality was 15.4%. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:330–338

COVID 19 led to massive disruption of elective services across Scotland. This study was designed to assess the impact on elective service that the COVID-19 pandemic had, to what extent services have been restarted and the associated risks are in doing so. This is a retrospective observational study. The primary outcomes are the number of operations completed, 30-day mortality, 30-day complication rates and nosocomial infection with COVID-19 compared to previous years. Data was collected from 4 regions across Scotland from 27th March 2020 - 26th March 2021. This was compared to the same time period the previous year. 3431 elective operations were completed in the year post-pandemic compared with 12255, demonstrating a reduction of 72%. Both groups had comparable demographics. Major joint arthroplasty saw a 72% reduction, with TKR seeing a reduction of 82%. Each of the 4 health boards were affected in a similar fashion. Nosocomial COVID-19 infection was 0.4% in the post covid group. 30 day mortality was the same at 0.1%. Total complications rose from 5.7% to 10.1% post covid. This study shows that there has been a substantial reduction in elective activity across Scotland that is disproportionate to the level of COVID-19. The risk of developing COVID-19 from elective surgery is low at 0.4%, however all complications saw a significant rise. This is likely multifactorial. This study will inform decision makers in future pandemics, that it is safe to continue elective orthopaedic surgery and of the potential impact of cessation of services

Aims. It is imperative to understand the risks of operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2 virus) pandemic for clinical decision-making and medical resource planning. The primary aim was to determine the mortality risk and associated variables when operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective was to assess differences in the outcome of patients treated between sites treating COVID-19 and a separate surgical site. Methods. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Secondary measures included complications of surgery, COVID-19 infection, and length of stay. Multiple variables were assessed for their contribution to the 30-day mortality. In total, 433 patients were included with a mean age of 65 years; 45% were male, and 90% were Caucasian. Results. Overall mortality was 7.6% for all patients and 15.9% for femoral neck fractures. The mortality rate increased from 7.5% to 44.2% in patients with fracture neck of femur and a COVID-19 infection. The COVID-19 rate in the 30-day postoperative period was 11%. COVID-19 infection, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were independent risk factor for mortality. Conclusion. There was a significant risk of contracting COVID-19 due to being admitted to hospital. Using a site which was not treating COVID-19 respiratory patients for surgery did not identify a difference with respect to mortality, nosocomial COVID-19 infection, or length of stay. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly increases perioperative mortality risk in patients with fractured neck of femora but patients with other injuries were not at increased risk. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):330–336

Aims. Elective orthopaedic surgery was cancelled early in the COVID-19 pandemic and is currently running at significantly reduced capacity in most institutions. This has resulted in a significant backlog to treatment, with some hospitals projecting that waiting times for arthroplasty is three times the pre-COVID-19 duration. There is concern that the patient group requiring arthroplasty are often older and have more medical comorbidities—the same group of patients advised they are at higher risk of mortality from catching COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate the morbidity and mortality in elective patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this to a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, including nosocomial COVID-19 infection. These operations were performed in a district general hospital, with COVID-19 acute admissions in the same building. Methods. Our institution reinstated elective operations using a “Blue stream” pathway, which involves isolation before and after surgery, COVID-19 testing pre-admission, and separation of ward and theatre pathways for “blue” patients. A register of all arthroplasties was taken, and their clinical course and investigations recorded. Results. During a seven-month period, 340 elective arthroplasties were performed. There was zero mortality. One patient had a positive swab for COVID-19 while an inpatient, but remained asymptomatic. There were two readmissions within a 12-week period for hip dislocation. Patients had a mean age of 68 years (28 to 90), mean BMI of 30 kg/m. 2. (19.0 to 45.6), and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of 2 (1 to 3). Conclusion. Results show no increased morbidity or mortality in this cohort of patients compared to the same hospital’s morbidity and mortality pre-COVID-19. The screened pathway for elective patients is effective in ensuring that patients can be safely operated on electively in an acute hospital. This study should reassure clinicians and patients that arthroplasties can be carried out safely when the appropriate precautions are in place. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):940–944

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

Abstract. Introduction. The risk of Covid-19 community and hospital acquired infection (HAI) on patient outcomes in trauma is still relevant. Patient's should be routinely consented for this risk to ensure informed consent for perioperative contraction. Method. A prospective audit was completed from December-March 2022 examining a consecutive series of patient admissions with capacity to consent. The standards for compliance was RCOS Toolkit 5#3 stating the importance of enhanced consent for risk of contraction, in operating and changes to care pathways. The target was 95% compliance. 2/2 contingency tables were generated to determine odds ratio for compliance versus Covid+ rate. Results. This audit generated 80 consecutive patients from which 28 were excluded as non-operative or lacking capacity. It was found that 25% (13/52) had been specifically consented for risks of Covid-19. The rate of PCR-positive results was 15% (8/52) with a mortality of 25%. Approximately 2% of patients in this series were informed of the risk and had a positive Covid-PCR. An odds ratio of 0.38 indicates that being informed of the risk is not associated with rate of infection e.g by adopting enhanced personal protective measures. Conclusions. The pandemic recovery has not removed this substantial community and nosocomial risk. Our results demonstrate poor compliance with RCS guidance despite ongoing relevance to care. Consent includes the counselling of a patient to specific Covid-related risks including thrombosis & death. Dissemination of these results will be followed by completion of the audit cycle to look for improvements in compliance

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

Aims. Elective operating was halted during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase the capacity to provide care to an unprecedented volume of critically unwell patients. During the pandemic, the orthopaedic department at the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board restructured the trauma service, relocating semi-urgent ambulatory trauma operating to the isolated clean elective centre (St. Woolos’ Hospital) from the main hospital receiving COVID-19 patients (Royal Gwent Hospital). This study presents our experience of providing semi-urgent trauma care in a COVID-19-free surgical unit as a safe way to treat trauma patients during the pandemic and a potential model for restarting an elective orthopaedic service. Methods. All patients undergoing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic at the orthopaedic surgical unit (OSU) in St. Woolos’ Hospital from 23 March 2020 to 24 April 2020 were included. All patients that were operated on had a telephone follow-up two weeks after surgery to assess if they had experienced COVID-19 symptoms or had been tested for COVID-19. The nature of admission, operative details, and patient demographics were obtained from the health board’s electronic record. Staff were assessed for sickness, self-isolation, and COVID-19 status. Results. A total of 58 surgical procedures were undertaken at the OSU during the study period; 93% (n = 54) of patients completed the telephone follow-up. Open reduction and internal fixation of ankle and wrist fractures were the most common procedures. None of the patients nor members of their households had developed symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 or required testing. No staff members reported sick days or were advised by occupational health to undergo viral testing. Conclusion. This study provides optimism that orthopaedic patients planned for surgery can be protected from COVID-19 nosocomial transmission at separate COVID-19-free sites. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:302–308

During the COVID-19 pandemic, video/phone consultations (VPC) were increasingly utilised as an alternative to face-to-face (F2F) consultations, to minimise nosocomial viral exposure. We previously demonstrated that VPCs were highly rated by both patients and clinicians. This study compared satisfaction between both clinic modalities in contemporaneously delivered outpatient surveys. We also assessed the feasibility and effects of converting F2F orthopaedic consultations to VPC. Surveys were posted to patients who attended VPCs and F2F consultations at a large tertiary centre from August to October 2020 inclusive, across 51 specialties. F2F and VPC patients ranked their overall satisfaction with their consultation on a 10-point numerical scale (10=highest satisfaction). Simultaneously, a pilot study was undertaken of outpatient fracture clinics to identify patients suitable for VPCs, with X-rays (if needed) taken and transferred from satellite sites to reduce tertiary centre footfall. For F2F consultations, 1419 of 4465 surveys (31.8%) were returned with similar rates for VPCs (1332 of 4572, 29.1%). While mean satisfaction ratings were high for both clinic modalities, they were significantly higher for F2F: 9.13 (95% CI 9.05-9.22) for F2F clinics, compared to 8.23 (95% CI 8.11-8.35) for VPCs (p<0.001, t-test). F2F patients were almost four times more likely to state a preference for future F2F appointments compared to VPCs, whereas patients who attended VPCs showed an equal preference for either option (p< 0.001, chi2 test). 53% of 111 fracture clinic patients sampled were identified as suitable for VPCs. 1 patient (1.7%) requested their VPC to be converted to F2F due to poor symptom control. Our study showed patients reported high satisfaction ratings for both F2F clinics and VPCs, with prior experience of VPCs affecting patients’ future preferences. Only 1.7% of F2F patients converted to VPCs declined their virtual appointment. Our results support future use of VPCs

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection. If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading

Aims. The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway. Methods. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative test was calculated using a lower-end RT-PCR sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 95%, and the UK disease prevalence of 0.24% reported in May 2020. Subsequently, a case fatality rate of 20.5% was applied as a worst-case scenario. Results. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative preoperative test was 0.07% (around 1 in 1,400). The risk of a patient with an undetected infection being admitted for surgery and subsequently dying from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is estimated at approximately 1 in 7,000. However, if an estimate of the current global infection fatality rate (1.04%) is applied, the risk of death would be around 1 in 140,000, at most. This calculation does not take into account the risk of nosocomial infection. Conversely, it does not factor in that patients will also be clinically assessed and asked to self-isolate prior to surgery. Conclusion. Our estimation suggests that the risk of patients being inadvertently admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection for elective orthopaedic surgery is relatively low. Accordingly, the risk of death following elective orthopaedic surgery is low, even when applying the worst-case fatality rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1256–1260

Abstract. Background. During COVID-19 pandemic, there has been worldwide cancellation of elective surgeries to protect patients from nosocomial transmission and peri-operative complications. With unfolding situation, there is definite need for exit strategy to reinstate elective services. Therefore, more literature evidence supporting exit plan to elective surgical services is imperative to adopt a safe working principle. This study aims to provide evidence for safe elective surgical practice during pandemic. Methods. This single centre, prospective, observational study included adult patients who were admitted and underwent elective surgical procedures in the trust's COVID-Free environment at Birmingham Treatment Centre between 19th May and 14th July’2020. Data collected on demographic parameters, peri-operative variables, surgical specialities, COVID-19 RT-PCR testing results, post-operative complications and mortality. The study also highlighted the protocols it followed for the elective services during pandemic. Results. 303 patients were included with mean age of 49.9 years (SD 16.5) comprising of 59% (178) female and 41% (125) male. They were classified according to American Society of Anaesthesiologist Grade, different surgical specialities and types of anaesthesia used. 96% patients were discharged on the same day. 100% compliance to pre-operative COVID-19 testing was maintained. There was no 30-day mortality or major respiratory complications. Conclusion. Careful patient selection, simultaneous involvement of the pre-assessment and anaesthetic team, strict adherence to peri-operative protocols and delivering vigilant post-operative care for COVID-19 infection can help providing safe elective surgical services if the community transmission under reasonable control. However, it is particularly important to maintain COVID-free safe environment for such procedures

Proximal femoral fracture (PFF) is already epidemic and projected to increase. 50% of patients fail to recover their preaccident mobility, resulting in protracted hospitalisation and exposure to nosocomial (hospital acquired) infections which impairs recovery further. The aim of this study was to establish the rate at which patients with PFF regain mobility, the point at which they cease to recover and the incidence, time of onset and effect of nosocomial infections. Recovery of mobility and nosocomial infection was prospectively recorded in 170 consecutive patients with PFF. 53% regained their best level of mobility within 6 days of admission, 81% within 8 and 91% within 14. The mean hospital stay was 21 days and delay to discharge was 14 days. During the delay, mobility deteriorated in 22% of patients and 58% developed nosocomial infection of which 18 were methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus. The risk of infection doubled after a delay of 6 days. Protracted hospitalisation after PFF is unhelpful and dangerous to patients and wasteful of healthcare resource. There is a small window of opportunity to discharge patients after PFF that is often missed. Thus there are often no beds for patients with acute fractures because they are occupied by patients who do not benefit from hospital admission or remain because they have acquired iatrogenic disease

The aim was to determine the influence of COVID-19 on 30-day mortality in hip fracture. Secondary aims were to examine: (1) predictors of COVID-19 on presentation and later in the admission; (2) rate of hospital-acquired COVID-19; (3) predictive value of negative swabs on admission. A nationwide multicentre retrospective cohort study of all patients with hip fracture in all 17 Scottish hospitals in March-April. Demographics, blood results, COVID-19 status, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), management, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality were recorded. 78/833 (9.4%) patients had COVID-19 (65 swab-proven). 30-day survival with COVID-19 was lower than without (65.4% vs 91%; p<0.001). COVID-19 within 7 days of admission (likely community-acquired) was independently associated with male sex (OR 2.34, p=0.040, CI 1.04–5.25) and COVID-19 symptoms (OR 15.56, CI 6.61–36.60, p<0.001). COVID-19 within 7–30 days (probable hospital-acquired) was independently associated with male sex (OR 1.73, CI 1.05–2.87, p=0.032), NHFS □7 (OR 1.91, CI 1.09–3.34, p=0.024), pulmonary disease (OR 1.68, CI 1.00–2.81, p=0.049), ASA □3 (OR 2.37, CI 1.13–4.97, p=0.022) and LOS □9 days (OR 1.98, CI 1.18–3.31, p=0.009). 38/65 (58.5%) of COVID-19 cases were probably hospital-acquired. The false negative rate of swabs on admission was 0% in asymptomatic and 2.9% in symptomatic patients. COVID-19 was associated with a threefold-increased 30-day mortality. Nosocomial transmission may have accounted for half of all cases. Identification of risk factors for having COVID-19 on admission, or acquiring COVID-19 later, may guide patient pathways. LOS was the only modifiable risk factor, emphasising the importance of high-quality, timely care

Blood transfusion is associated with an increased incidence of post-operative nosocomial infections following surgery. In a prospective study we evaluated the association of blood transfusion and the changes in the immune status with the incidence of infection in the post-operative period following primary hip arthroplasty and subsequently for two years following surgery. Method: Prospective analysis of 100 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. 25 patients received predonated autologus blood transfusions, 26 received SAGM whole blood, 23 received leukocyte depleted blood and 26 did not require a transfusion. T-helper cell, cytotoxic T cell and NK cell activity was recorded using a Beckton Dickson flow cytometer and assays of Plasma viscosity, CRP, Staph. Epidermis and ASO titres were analysed. All infections were recorded for 2 years following surgery. Results: he incidence of confirmed or suspected nosocomial infections following hip replacement was the same in non transfused patients as those receiving predonated autologus blood (19%). The incidence of nosocomial infection in patients receiving leukocyte depleted blood was 32% and 42% in those receiving a SAGM blood transfusion. ASO titres were raised in 16.9% of the patients on day 8 following surgery and Staph. Epidermis assays were raised in 20.2% of the patients however the frequency was unrelated to the type of blood transfusion. The incidence of nosocomial infections was reflected by a greater reduction in NK activity and CD4: CD8 ratio following surgery in patients receiving SAGM blood transfusion. Conclusion: Homologus blood transfusion may produce an immune compromise in patients, which is still detectable at 6 weeks following surgery. This is clinically reflected by a higher incidence of systemic infections in the postoperative period. Homologus blood should be used judiciously in joint arthroplasty with a preference to either leukocyte depleted blood or predonated autologus blood