Aims. Hand trauma, consisting of injuries to both the hand and the wrist, are a common injury seen worldwide. The global age-standardized incidence of hand trauma exceeds 179 per 100,000. Hand trauma may require surgical management and therefore result in significant costs to both healthcare systems and society. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common following all surgical interventions, and within hand surgery the risk of SSI is at least 5%. SSI following hand trauma surgery results in significant costs to healthcare systems with estimations of over £450 per patient. The World Health Organization (WHO) have produced international guidelines to help prevent SSIs. However, it is unclear what variability exists in the adherence to these guidelines within hand trauma. The aim is to assess compliance to the WHO global guidelines in prevention of SSI in hand trauma. Methods. This will be an international, multicentre audit comparing antimicrobial practices in hand trauma to the standards outlined by WHO. Through the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), hand surgeons across the globe will be invited to participate in the study. Consultant surgeons/associate specialists managing hand trauma and members of the multidisciplinary team will be identified at participating sites. Teams will be asked to collect data prospectively on a minimum of 20 consecutive patients. The audit will run for eight months. Data collected will include injury details, initial management, hand trauma team management, operation details, postoperative care, and antimicrobial techniques used throughout. Adherence to WHO global guidelines for SSI will be summarized using descriptive statistics across each criteria. Discussion. The Hand and Wrist trauma: Antimicrobials and Infection Audit of Clinical Practice (HAWAII ACP) will provide an understanding of the current antimicrobial practice in hand trauma surgery. This will then provide a basis to guide further research in the field. The findings of this study will be disseminated via conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):361–366

Aims. This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice. Methods. National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were received for 84,816 RHAs and 818,979 PHAs recorded between April 2011 and December 2019. RHA data comprised all revision procedures, including first-time revisions of PHA and any subsequent re-revisions recorded in public and private healthcare organizations. Annual procedure volumes undertaken by the responsible consultant surgeon in the 12 months prior to every index procedure were determined. We identified a cohort of ‘new’ HA consultants who commenced practice from 2012 and describe their rate of accrual of PHA and RHA experience. Results. The median annual consultant RHA volume, averaged across all cases, was 21 (interquartile range (IQR) 11 to 34; range 0 to 181). Of 1,695 consultants submitting RHA cases within the study period, the top 20% of surgeons by annual volume performed 74.2% of total RHA case volume. More than half of all consultants who had ever undertaken a RHA maintained an annual volume of just one or fewer RHA, however, collectively contributed less than 3% of the total RHA case volume. Consultant PHA and RHA volumes were positively correlated. Lower-volume surgeons were more likely to undertake RHA for urgent indications (such as infection) as a proportion of their practice, and to do so on weekends and public holidays. Conclusion. The majority of RHAs were undertaken by higher-volume surgeons. There was considerable variation in RHA volumes by indication, day of the week, and between consultants nationally. The rate of accrual of RHA experience by new consultants is low, and has important implications for establishing an experienced RHA consultant workforce. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1060–1069

Introduction. Osteomyelitis is a challenge in diagnosis and treatment. 18F-FDG PET-CT provides a non-invasive tool for diagnosing and localizing osteomyelitis with a sensitivity reaching 94% and specificity reaching 100%. We aimed to assess the agreement in identifying the geographic area of infected bone and planned resection on plain X-ray versus 18F-FDG PET-CT. Materials & Methods. Clinical photos and X-rays of ten osteomyelitis patients were shown to ten consultant surgeons; they were asked to draw the area of infection and extent of planned surgical debridement; data will be compared to 18F-FDG PET-CT results. Results. We tested the agreement between the surgeons in every parameter. Regarding height, there was poor agreement between surgeons. Regarding perimeter, the ten surgeons showed low-moderate agreement. The ten surgeons showed a low-moderate agreement for circularity. Results document the variability of assessment and judgement based on plain X-rays. In comparison to PET-CT, All parameters were significantly different in favour of 18F-FDG PET-CT over X-ray (P < 0.001). Conclusions. 18F FDG PET-CT provides a three-dimensional tool for localizing the exact location of the infected bone and differentiating it from the normal bone. Thus, it could be beneficial in precise pre-operative planning and surgical debridement of chronic osteomyelitis

The attitudes of orthopaedic surgeons regarding radiology reporting is not well-described in the literature. We surveyed Orthopaedic Surgeons in Australia and New Zealand to assess if they routinely review formal radiology reports. An anonymized, 14 question online survey was distributed to consultant surgeons of the Australian and New Zealand Orthopaedic Associations (AOA, NZOA). Two hundred respondents completed the survey (Total number of Fellows: 283 NZOA, 1185 AOA). 18.5% of respondents always reviewed the formal Radiology report, 44.5% most of the time, 35% sometimes and 2% never. By imaging modality, MRI reports were the most frequently reviewed (92%), followed by ultrasound (74%) and nuclear medicine (63%). Only 10% of surgeons consulted formal reports for plain radiography. 55% of surgeons were still likely to disagree with the MRI report, followed by 46% for plain radiography. In cases of disagreement, only 21% of surgeons would always contact the reporting radiologist. The majority of Surgeons (85.5%) think there should be more collaboration between the disciplines, although only 50.5% had regular attendance of a Radiologist at their departmental audit. This survey reveals that the majority of orthopaedic surgeons are not routinely reading radiology reports. This points towards a need for further interdisciplinary collaboration. To our knowledge, this is the first survey directly assessing attitudes of orthopaedic surgeons towards radiology reports

Abstract. Introduction. MRI scanning is the establish method of defining intra- and extra-articular diagnoses of patients with non-arthritic knee problems. Discrepancies in reporting have been noted in previous historic studies and anecdotally. The aim of this study was to analyse the reporting of intra-articular pathology and discrepancies in knee MRI reports by two clinician groups, consultant radiologists and consultant knee surgeons in a district hospital setting. Methods. A retrospective case-controlled cohort study was conducted using data collected from an outpatient physiotherapy-led knee clinic. Seventy-four patients in the cohort were referred for an MRI scan of their knee(s) following a clinical examination and history. MRI reports from both the consultant knee surgeon and the radiologist were entered into a database with other clinical details. Reports were analysed to determine number of diagnoses and degree of agreement. Each report was deemed to either completely agree, completely disagree or partially agree. Results. 87 knees were scanned in total. Of the 87 reports, 14% (n=12) completely agreed. 45% of the reports (n=39) partially agreed and 41% (n=36) completely disagreed. Of the reports which partially agreed 79% (n=31) had a percentage agreement of ≤ 50%. Conclusions. This study reveals major discrepancies in knee MRI reporting by two clinician groups. This has greatest clinical impact on non-surgical clinicians and those with limited MRI reviewing experience who are reliant on reports to describe diagnoses to patients and determining management plans. More research is required to determine the reasons for these differences and measures to mitigate them

Alcohol hand rubs, endorsed by WHO and NICE guidelines, are integral to modern surgical practices. Our objective was to assess how different scrubbing methods impact overall water usage by the surgical team, shedding light on variations among team members and their environmental implications. Over three consecutive arthroplasty lists spanning a week, water usage during scrubbing was observed for the operating team. Blinding all team members, including the anesthetist, consultant surgeon, orthopaedic registrar, orthopaedic SHO, and scrub nurse, during water usage calculations was implemented. Automated taps, using motion sensors, posed a challenge due to variable water quantity, necessitating water flow calculations per sensor movement. The senior surgeon, with over 20 years of experience, follows a traditional approach, starting with a morning prescrub and using an alcohol tub for each case, except when hands are soiled. We observed a total of 14 cases of lower limb primary arthroplasty. The cumulative water usage for scrubbing by the entire team was 193 liters, yielding a mean of 13.8 liters (±1.85) per case. The anaesthetist demonstrated the most conservative water usage, utilizing a total of 11.85 liters with a mean of 0.84 liters per case. Notably, alcohol rub was employed for half of the observed time, contributing to this efficient use. The senior operating surgeon used a total of 15.6 liters, averaging 1.1 liters per case. In contrast, the SHO and the registrar exhibited the highest water consumption, totaling 121.6 liters and yielding a mean of 5.7 liters per case. The nurses’ collective water usage for scrubbing amounted to 44.8 liters. Adopting alcohol rub, as endorsed by WHO, results in a remarkable 10-fold reduction in water usage, aligning with global health guidelines. This highlights significant potential for resource conservation in surgical procedures, presenting a practical and environmentally conscious approach to surgical scrubbing practices