There is a surge of patients on the waiting-list for primary total hip replacement (THR), due to unprecedented reduction of elective activity caused by COVID-19. A higher incidence of femoral head collapse (FC) and acetabular erosion (AE) leading to increase in pain and instability as well as requirement of more complex surgery and potentially higher risk to patients was noted in this period. Rapidly progressive Arthritis (RPA) of the hip is a known entity often described as progression of joint space narrowing greater than 2mm over one year time period. The study aims to identify any potential relationship between waiting time and establishment of femoral head collapse and/ or acetabular erosion. A retrospective review of arthroplasty surgeon's waiting list during COVID. Serial hip radiographs recorded between February 2020 and February 2022 were analysed. FC was quantified as a percentage of the femoral head radius, while AE was assessed by drawing two parallel lines, one through both tear drops and the other through superior most aspect of intact acetabulum, parallel to the inter tear-drop line and expressed as percentage of normal side. Only 105 patients out of 264 patients added to the waiting list had elective arthroplasty for hip/knee. Only 35 patients out of 90 listed for THR, had the surgery. 36 of 90 (40%) were found to have developed FC and fitted the criteria for RPA. Acetabular erosion was seen in 19 (21%). Therefore 53% (19 of 36) of those who developed FC progressed to AE. Incidence of collapse was higher in females (32%), with mean age of 62 (range 51–81), compared to 21% in males with mean age 59 (range 53–87). Mean extent of femoral head collapse was 20% (10 – 44%). A significant proportion of patients added to waiting list during COVID developed RPA of the hip with 40% having femoral head collapse and 21% progressing to acetabular erosion leading to a complex case-mix. Patients on long waiting lists need regular x-ray checks/PROMS since significant proportion progress to FC and Acetabular Erosion

In March 2020, the World Health Organisation declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. Multiple new guidelines were proposed and existing models of social, domestic and hospital care altered. Most healthcare systems were largely unprepared for this and this pandemic has tested their adaptability. This study is aimed at assessing the impact of covid-19 on the demographics, presentation and clinical management of patients with proximal femoral (hip) fractures. This retrospective multi-centre cohort study compared all patients admitted with hip fractures, between 1. st. March and 30th May 2019 (Group PC: Pre-Covid) with hip fracture patients admitted over the same time period during the pandemic in 2020 (Group C: Covid). The data was obtained from the hospitals' local and National Hip Fracture Databases. Mortality data was checked with the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Primary outcomes were time to theatre, in-patient length of stay and 30-day mortality. 580 patients were included (304 PC, 276 C). Patient Charlson comorbidity index and Nottingham Hip Fracture scores were broadly similar across the two cohorts. There was a significant reduction in percentage of total hip replacements in Group C (11% to 5%, p=0.006). There was an increase in conservative management in group C (1% to 5%, p=0.002). The time to theatre was significantly delayed in Group C (43.7 hours C versus 34.6 hours PC, p<0.001). Overall length of hospital stay was similar in both groups (16.6 days PC versus 15 days C, p=0.089). 30-day mortality rate in Group C was 9.8% compared to 8.2% in Group PC (p=0.431), but for covid (+) patients it was significantly higher at 38.2% versus 5.8% in covid (−) patients (p<0.001). This is one of the largest multi-centre comparative cohort study in the literature to date, examining the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the management of hip fracture patients. Whilst mortality rates were similar in both groups, covid patients were almost seven times more likely to die, reflecting the seriousness of the covid-19 infection and its sequelae in such elderly, vulnerable patients

Aims. The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic forced an unprecedented period of challenge to the NHS in the UK where hip fractures in the elderly population are a major public health concern. There are approximately 76,000 hip fractures in the UK each year which make up a substantial proportion of the trauma workload of an average orthopaedic unit. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hip fracture care service and the emerging lessons to withstand any future outbreaks. Methods. Data were collected retrospectively on 157 hip fractures admitted from March to May 2019 and 2020. The 2020 group was further subdivided into COVID-positive and COVID-negative. Data including the four-hour target, timing to imaging, hours to operation, anaesthetic and operative details, intraoperative complications, postoperative reviews, COVID status, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), length of stay, postoperative complications, and the 30-day mortality were compiled from computer records and our local National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) export data. Results. Hip fractures and inpatient falls significantly increased by 61.7% and 7.2% respectively in the 2020 group. A significant difference was found among the three groups regarding anaesthetic preparation time, anaesthetic time, and recovery time. The mortality rate in the 2020 COVID-positive group (36.8%) was significantly higher than both the 2020 COVID-negative and 2019 groups (11.5% and 11.7% respectively). The hospital stay was significantly higher in the COVID-positive group (mean of 24.21 days (SD 19.29)). Conclusion. COVID-19 has had notable effects on the hip fracture care service: hip fracture rates increased significantly. There were inefficiencies in theatre processes for which we have recommended the use of alternate theatres. COVID-19 infection increased the 30-day mortality and hospital stay in hip fractures. More research needs to be done to reduce this risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:530–540

Most hip replacements are performed in an in-patient setting; however, there has been a shift in recent years in Canada towards doing more on an outpatient basis. In 2021–2022, 15.6% of hip replacements were performed as day surgeries compared to 0.7% in 2018–2019. This analysis will assess patient reported outcome measures of patients who had inpatient versus outpatient hip replacement surgery between 2018 and 2021. We analysed a retrospective sample of 4917 adult patients who had an elective primary unilateral hip replacement. Preoperative and three-month postoperative PROMs were completed - the Oxford Hip Score, EQD5L and patient satisfaction with the outcome were recorded. Patients who had an outpatient procedure were matched 1:1 with patients who are admitted to hospital for surgery based on age, sex and pre-COVID versus the COVID (March 15, 2020 as the start). Preoperative PROMs and Charlson Comorbidity Index were collected. T-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess the differences. The inpatient group on average was older, female and had a lower preoperative PROMs score and more comorbidities than the outpatient group. With cohort matching the sample consisted of 1244 patients. The inpatient and outpatient groups have similar Oxford scores, postoperative EQ-5D-5L scores and the proportion satisfied with their surgical results. The Oxford postoperative score was slightly higher in the outpatient group compared to the inpatient group; however, this is not clinically significant. We observed that outpatient protocols have no difference in patient satisfaction, self-reported functional outcomes and self-reported health-related quality of life three months after a hip replacement. Day surgery protocols represented potential solution to the challenges caused by the expected increase in demand for hip replacements. Our results demonstrated that patients do well clinically with day surgery procedures and there does not appear to be any detrimental effect on PROMs

Clinical commissioning groups (CCG) have been replaced with ICBs that will bring together NHS and social care for the local population. ICBs are allocating contracts for long waiters for total hip replacements (THR) to hospitals that have achieved pre-covid volumes of THR, THR volumes undertaken by hospitals in 2022 should be at 2019 levels or more. Purpose of this study was to identify whether NHS hospitals in England are at a disadvantage in procuring ICB contracts for THR. THR volumes for NHS and independent sector (IND) hospitals from January 2012 to November 2022 were identified via National Joint Registry. Regional and national trend for THR volumes were identified for both NHS and IND hospitals using linear regression analysis. Trends of THR for NHS hospitals showed either stagnation or reduction in volume from 2014–2019. In 2022, nationally THR volume of NHS was 70% of 2019 (Figure 1). Trend of THR volume for IND hospitals nationally was a strong uptrend from 2012 to 2022 with a break only in 2020 due to COVID pandemic (Figure 2). Since the pandemic IND have overtaken NHS hospitals in volumes of THR undertaken. Similar picture of trends evolves when THR trends were assessed on a region by region basis. With NHS hospitals not back to pre-pandemic THR volumes, IND hospitals have a distinct advantage in securing more contracts via ICB. This in turn puts NHS hospitals at risk of taking on more complex and medically unwell patients potentially worsening NJR outcomes for NHS hospitals. The reasons for the lag in NHS hospitals’ THR volumes are multifactorial, not limited to continued bed pressures, increased emergency and unplanned admissions, staff shortages and sickness, pension taxations preventing doctors from undertaking more THR. However, lack of access to contracts from ICB will put NHS hospitals at huge financial and existential risk for elective care. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. While additional resources associated with direct anterior (DA) approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) such as fluoroscopy, staff, and special tables are well recognized, time consumption is not well studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze anesthesia and surgical time in DA and posterior approach THA in a large healthcare system across multiple facilities and surgeons. Methods. 3,155 unilateral primary THAs performed via DA or posterior approaches between 1/1/2017 and 06/30/2019 at nine hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) in a large metropolitan healthcare system were retrospectively reviewed. All surgeons were experienced and beyond learning curves. 247 cases were excluded to eliminate confounds. Operating room (OR) in and out times and surgical times were collected via EMR electronic and manual data extraction with verification. Multivariate statistical analyses were utilized with p<0.05 significant. Results. 1261 DA approach (43%) and 1647 posterior approach (57%) THAs were analyzed. Mean total OR time, including anesthesia and positioning, was greatest for hospital-based DA THAs (146 mins), followed by hospital posterior approach THAs (126.4 mins), ASC-based DA THAs (118.1 mins) and ASC posterior THAs (90.1 mins) (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, compared to the optimal ASC posterior approach group, the total OR time predictive model added 31 minutes per ASC DA THA, 33 minutes per hospital posterior THA, and 56 minutes for hospital DA THA (p<0.001). Similar predictive effect was observed for surgical time, which added 18 minutes per ASC-based DA THA, 22 minutes for hospital posterior THA and 29 minutes for hospital DA THA (p<0.001). Conclusion. In the COVID era, efficiency should be enhanced to maximize patient access for elective procedures and facilitate the healthcare system financial recovery. Despite equivocal clinical results, DA approach THA consumes substantially more OR time when compared to the posterior approach in both the hospital and ASC setting

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. Methods. We reviewed our prospectively maintained trust database and National Hip Fracture Database records for the months of March and April between the years 2016 and 2020. Our assessment included fracture pattern (intrascapular vs extracapsular hip fracture), treatment intervention, length of stay and mortality. Results. We treated 288 patients during March and April between 2016 and 2020, with a breakdown of 55, 58, 53, 68, and 54 from 2016 to 2020 respectively. Fracture pattern distribution in the pre-COVID-19 years of 2016 to 2019 was 58% intracapsular and 42% extracapsular. In 2020 (COVID-19 period) the fracture patterns were 65% intracapsular and 35% extracapsular. Our mean length of stay was 13.1 days (SD 8.2) between 2016 to 2019, and 5.0 days (6.3) days in 2020 (p < 0.001). Between 2016 and 2019 we had three deaths in hip fracture patients, and one death in 2020. Hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw fixation have been the mainstay of operative intervention across the five years and this has continued in the COVID-19 period. We have experienced a rise in conservatively managed patients; ten in 2020 compared to 14 over the previous four years. Conclusion. There has not been a reduction in the number of hip fractures during COVID-19 period compared to the same time period over previous years. In our experience, there has been an increase in conservative treatment and decreased length of stay during the COVID -19 period. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:500–507

Aims

This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on hip and distal femur fracture patient outcomes across three successive UK lockdown periods over one year.

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.