The objectives of this study are to evaluate the impact of the CoVID-19 pandemic on the development of relevant emerging digital healthcare trends and to explore which digital healthcare trend does the health industry need most to support HCPs.

A web survey using 39 questions facilitating Five-Point Likert scales was performed from 1.8.2020 – 31.10.2020. Of 260 participants invited, 90 participants answered the questionnaire. The participants were located in the Hospital/HCP sector in 11.9%, in other healthcare sectors in 22.2%, in the pharmaceutical sector in 11.1%, in the medical device and equipment industry in 43.3%. The Five-Point Likert scales were in all cases fashioned as from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

As the top 3 most impacted digital health care trends strongly impacted by CoVID-19, respondents named:

- remote management of patients by telemedicine, mean answer 4.44

- shared data governance under patient control, mean answer 3.80

- new virtual interaction between HCP´s and medical industry, mean answer 3.76

Respondents were asked which level of readiness of the healthcare system currently possess to cope with the current trend impacted by CoVID-19.

- Digital and efficient healthcare logistics, mean answer 1.54

- Integrated health care, mean answer 1.73

- Use of big data and artificial intelligence, mean answer 2.03

Asked if collaborative research in the form of digital data platforms for research data sharing and increasing collaboration with multi-centric consortia would have a positive impact on the healthcare sector, the agreement was high with a value of mean 4.10 on the scale.

We can conclude that the impact of COVID-19 appears to be a high agreement of necessary advances in digitalization in the health care sector and in the collaboration of HCPs with the health care industry. Health care professional are unsure, in how far the national health care sector is capable of transformation in healthcare logistics and integrated health care.

The need to accurately forecast the injury burden has never been higher. With an aging, ever expanding trauma population and less than half of the beds available compared to 1990, the National Health Service (NHS) is stretched to breaking point. 1,2. . We utilised a dataset of 22,585 trauma patients across the four countries of the United Kingdom (UK) admitted to 83 hospitals between 22/08/22 – 16/10/22 to determine whether it is possible to predict the proportionality of injuries treated operatively within orthopaedic departments based on their number of Neck of Femur fracture (NOF) patients. More operations were performed for elderly hip fractures alone than for the combined totals of the next four most common fractures: ankle, distal radius, tibial shaft and forearm (6387 vs 5922). Conversely, 10 out of the 13 fracture types were not encountered by at least one hospital and 93% of hospitals encountered less than 2 fractures of a certain type. 60% trauma is treated within Trauma Units (TUs) however, per unit, Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) treat approximately 43% more patients. After excluding NOF, lower limb fractures accounted for approximately 57% of fractures in all countries and ankle and distal radius fracture combined comprised more than 50% in 74% of regions. The number of hip fractures seen on average by an individual unit remains relatively consistent as does the regional variation of any given fracture; resultantly, it is possible to predict injury proportionality based off a unit's hip fracture numbers. This powerful tool could transform both resource allocation and recruitment

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. Over 1,000 operations are performed annually in the United Kingdom for PJI following hip replacement, using either one- or two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear which is preferred by patients and which has the best long-term outcome. This qualitative study aims to describe patient experiences of treatment and recovery following one- and two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI within the context of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing these two approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision treatment for PJI as part of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 12 participating National Health Service (NHS) Orthopaedic Departments and were interviewed 2–4 months after their first revision surgery and again approximately 18 months later. Final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. All patients consented to the interview being audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Ethical approval was provided by NRES Committee South-West Frenchay, 14/SW/116. Patients in both the one- and two-stage treatment groups described prolonged hospital stays, with burdensome antibiotics and brief physiotherapy treatment. However, following discharge home and during recovery, participants undergoing two-stage revision with an ‘empty hip' or with a spacer reported being physically restricted in almost every aspect of their daily life, resulting in inactivity and confinement to home. Mobility aids were not sufficiently available through the health service for these patients. A key difference is that those with a spacer reported more pain than those without. Approximately one year following their second-stage revision, participants described being more independent and active, but two directly attributed muscle weakness to the lengthy period without a hip and described resulting falls or dislocations that had complicated their recovery. In contrast, those undergoing one-stage revision and CUMARS appeared to be more alike, reporting better mobility, functionality and independence, although still limited. Participants in these groups also reported minimal or no pain following their revision. A key difference between CUMARS and one-stage revision was the uncertainty of whether a second operation was necessary, which participants described as “hanging over them”, while those in the two-stage empty hip or spacer group described a more positive anticipation of a second definitive operation as it marked an end to what was described as a detachment from life. Our findings highlight the differences between patient experiences of recovery following revision arthroplasty, and how this is influenced by the surgical approach and presence or lack of spacers. An understanding of lived experiences following one- and two-stage surgical interventions will complement knowledge about the clinical effectiveness of these different types of revision surgery

Abstract. Objectives. The need to accurately forecast the injury burden has never been higher. With an aging, ever expanding trauma population and less than half of the beds available compared to 1990, the National Health Service (NHS) is stretched to breaking point1,2. Resultantly, we aimed to determine whether it is possible to predict the proportionality of injuries treated operatively within orthopaedic departments based on their number of Neck of Femur fracture (NOF) patients reported both in our study and the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). Methods. We utilised the ORthopaedic trauma hospital outcomes - Patient operative delays (ORTHOPOD) dataset of 22,585 trauma patients across the four countries of the United Kingdom (UK) admitted to 83 hospitals between 22/08/22 – 16/10/22. This dataset had two arms: arm one was assessing the caseload and theatre capacity, arm two assessed the patient, injury and management demographics. Results. Our results complied with the data reported to the NHFD in over 80% of cases for both the 2022 and five-year average reported numbers. More operations were performed for elderly hip fractures alone than for the combined totals of the next four most common fractures: ankle, distal radius, tibial shaft and forearm (6387 vs 5922). Conversely, 10 out of the 13 fracture types were not encountered by at least one hospital and 93% of hospitals encountered less than 2 fractures of a certain type.60% of trauma is treated within Trauma Units (TUs) however, per unit, Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) treat approximately 43% more patients. Similarly, 11 out of the 14 fracture types examined presented more frequently to a MTC however 3 of the most common fractures had a preponderance for TUs (elderly hip, distal radius and forearm fractures). After excluding NOF, lower limb fractures accounted for approximately 57% of fractures in all countries and ankle and distal radius fracture combined comprised more than 50% in 74% of regions. There were few outliers across the study regarding number of fractures treated by a hospital with tibial shaft fractures demonstrating the highest number of outliers with 4. Conclusions. The number of hip fractures seen on average by an individual unit remains relatively consistent as does the regional variation of any given fracture; resultantly, it is possible to predict injury proportionality based off a unit's hip fracture numbers. This powerful tool could transform both resource allocation and recruitment. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Introduction. Postoperative total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) blood tests cost the National Health Service in the UK more than £72000 annually without definite evidence of their impact on outcomes. This study aimed to ascertain if these blood tests can be implemented on a per-patient basis. Methods. A retrospective review of one centre TSA patients over 6 years. Primary outcomes were interventions to abnormal postoperative blood tests. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), and readmission within 30 and 90 days. Results. 193 patients underwent 216 TSAs; 72 % were females and 18% males. The mean age was 78 ± 7.2 years. Completed procedures included 134 reverse, 64 anatomical and 18 revision TSAs. 136 patients (63%) had an abnormal postoperative blood test, however, only 8 (3.7%) required intervention. The average postoperative Hb drop was 19 g/L with 94 patients (43.5%) having Hb <109g/L. 4 patients (1.8%) dropped Hb < 80g/L; only 2 (0.9%) were symptomatic and received RBC transfusion. 6 patients (2.8%) developed acute kidney injury and treated by IV fluids. The mean LOS was 3.2 ± 2.9 days .5 patients (2.3%) were readmitted within 30 days and 6 patients (2.8%) within 90 days. Univariate analysis showed association only between abnormal Creatinine and LOS (p<0.05) and of these patients, all had abnormal preoperative Creatinine baseline. No statistical correlation detected between age (p=0.287), postoperative Hb (p=0.230) and LOS nor readmission at 30 or 90 days. Conclusions. Routine postoperative blood tests are not required as no detected meaningful clinical impact and should be requested on an individual justified basis

Open lower limb fractures are resource-intensive fractures, accounting for a significant proportion of the workload and cost of orthopaedic trauma units. A recent study has evaluated that the median cost of direct inpatient treatment of open lower-limb fractures in the National Health Service (NHS) is steep, at £19189 per patient. Healthcare providers are expected to be aware of the costs of treatments, although there is very limited dissemination of this information, neither on a national or local level. Older adults (>65 years old) are at an increased risk of the types of high-energy injuries that can result in open lower limb fractures. Generally, there remains a significant lack of literature surrounding the cost of open fracture management, especially in specific patient groups that are disproportionately affected by these fractures. This study has calculated the direct inpatient care costs of older adults with open lower limb fractures. Open lower limb fractures in adult patients over 65 years old treated at Addenbrooke's Hospital of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust were identified over the period of March 2014-March 2019. Isolated fractures of the femur, tibia and fibula over this time period were included. Direct inpatient care costs were calculated using information about the sustained fracture, operative time, implant(s) and theatre kit(s) used, the number of patient bed-days on the orthopaedic ward and critical care unit, and the number of hours of inpatient physiotherapy received. Direct inpatient care costs were compared with the income received by our centre for each of these cases, according to Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) cost codes. Our data was also compared with existing literature on Patient Level Costing (PLC) figures for open lower limb fractures. We extracted data from 58 patients over the age of 65 years treated for open isolated lower limb fractures at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, between March 2014 and March 2019. The median cost of inpatient care calculated in this study was £20,398 per patient, resulting in a financial loss to the hospital of £5113 per patient. When the results were disaggregated by sex, the median cost for an open lower limb fracture in a male patient was £20,886 compared to £19,304 in a female patient. Data were also disaggregated by the site of injury, which produced a median cost for an open femur fracture of £23,949, and £24,549 and £15,362 for open tibia and ankle fractures, respectively. The absence of published primary literature and clinical audits on this topic continues to hinder the inclusion of cost-effectiveness as an important factor in clinical decision-making. This study provides valuable insight into the true cost of open lower limb fractures in a key patient population in a Major Trauma Centre in England and highlights the large losses incurred by hospitals in treating these cases. These results support the revision of the remuneration structures in the NHS for the treatment of elderly patients with these injuries

In the UK and USA in 2016 more than 263,000 primary knee replacements were performed. Around 20% of patients report chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) at three or more months after total knee replacement (TKR). A large proportion of adults with all types of chronic musculoskeletal pain do not use services for a number of reasons, despite being in constant or daily pain. Given the high prevalence of CPSP, there is potentially a large hidden population with an unexpressed need for care, experiencing ongoing pain and disability; understanding why they do not use health services may herald further insight into why many remain dissatisfied with knee replacement surgery. The aim of this study is to understand why some people with CPSP after TKR do not access services or make little use of healthcare. We conducted face-to-face in-depth interviews with 34 patients from 2 high-volume orthopaedic hospitals in England, to investigate their experience of long-term pain after knee replacement; their knowledge and understanding of CPSP; and their decisions about consulting for CPSP. The sample size was based on achievement of saturation and participants provided written informed consent. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using an inductive thematic approach with double coding for rigor. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the West Midlands Solihull Research Ethics Committee (15/WM/0469). A core theme within the analysis suggests that participants do not seek healthcare because they believe that nothing further can be done, either by themselves or by healthcare professionals. Surgeons' satisfaction with the knee surgery and reassurances that pain would improve, left patients feeling uncertain about whether to re-consult, and some assumed that further consultation could lead to further surgery or medication, which they wish to avoid. Some participants' comorbidities took precedence over their knee pain when seeking healthcare. Others felt they had received their “share” of healthcare resources and that others were more deserving of treatment. People's descriptions of pain varied, from dull, or aching to shooting pains. Many described their pain as “discomfort” rather than pain. The majority described pain that was better than their pre-surgical pain, though others described pain that was worse, which they believed to be nerve damage. Many expressed disappointment in the outcome of their TKR. Expectations of pain varied, where most had expected some post-surgical pain, others underestimated it, and some had expected to be completely pain free following their TKR. Our analysis suggests that the reasons that some people with CPSP after TKR do not consult are varied and complex, spanning psychosocial, structural, moral, and organisational domains. There was an overriding sense that further consultation would be futile or may lead to unwanted treatment. Results suggest that improved information for patients about CPSP and appropriate post-surgical healthcare services may help patients and clinicians to manage this condition more effectively

Foot pain and related problems are quite common in the community. It is reported that 24% of individuals older than 45 experienced foot pain. Also, it is stated that at least two thirds of individuals experiences moderate physical disability due to foot problems. In the absence of evaluation of risk factors such as limited ankle dorsiflexion in the early period of the diseases (Plantar fasciitis, Achilles Tendinopathy e.g.) and the lack of mobile systems with portable remote access, foot pain becomes refractory/chronic foot pain, secondary pathologies and ends with workload of 1., 2. and 3rd level healthcare services. In the literature, manuel and dijital methods have been used to analyze the ankle range of motion (ROM). These studies are generally based on placing protractors on the image and / or angle detection from inclination measurement by using the gyroscope sensor of the mobile device. Some of these applications are effective and they are designed to be suitable for measuring in a clinical setting by a physician or physiotherapist. To the best of our knowledge, there is no system developed to measure real-time ankle ROM remotely with collaboration of the patients. In this research, we proposed to develop an ankle ROM analyze system with smart phone application that can be used comfortably by subjects. We present a case of a 22-year-old male with a symptomatic pes planus. The mobile application, which was used for data collection, was designed and implemented for Android devices. Initially, before the mobile application home page is opened, a consent page was submitted to the acceptance of individual within the scope of Law (KVKK) data privacy. Then, the participant was asked to state his sociodemographic characteristics [age, gender, height, weight] and dominant side. No history of foot-ankle injury, trauma, and surgery was recorded. Activity pain of the foot was 6 according to visual anolog scale (VAS) in the mobile application. His ankle dorsiflexion was 15 ° by manuel goniometer. Besides, server was responsible for storing the collected data and ROM measurement. ROM was calculated by processing the foot video which was sent through the mobile application. During the processing phase, a segmentation model was used which was trained with image process and deep learning methods. With the developed system, we obtained the manual goniometric measurement result with 2 degrees deviation. As the application is calibrated, it is expected to approach the actual measurement of ROM. We can conclude that mobile app-goniometer result in dorsiflexion measurement is a novel promising evaluation method for ankle ROM. it will be easy and practical to detect and monitor risk factor of the diseases, decrease medical costs, provide health services in rural areas, and contribution to life quality and to reduce the workload on physicians and physiotherapist

There is a growing requirement by governmental and other funders of research, that investigators pay attention to and integrate considerations of sex and gender in their health research studies. Doing so, the argument goes, will reduce data waste, lead to the generation of more complete and accurate evidence to apply to the delivery of health care, and hopefully improve outcomes for both male and female patients. Yet, it is not always clear what sex and gender mean and how best to apply these to the study of diverse health conditions and health service delivery. In this presentation sex, gender and other related factors will be considered in the context of fractures, fracture repair, and post-operative management. Examples of sex and gender bias, sex and gender differences, and the integration of sex and gender in research on fracture and fracture repair will be presented

Objectives. “Virtual fracture clinics” have been reported as a safe and effective alternative to the traditional fracture clinic. Robust protocols are used to identify cases that do not require further review, with the remainder triaged to the most appropriate subspecialist at the optimum time for review. The objective of this study was to perform a “top-down” analysis of the cost effectiveness of this virtual fracture clinic pathway. Methods. National Health Service financial returns relating to our institution were examined for the time period 2009 to 2014 which spanned the service redesign. Results. The total staffing costs rose by 4% over the time period (from £1 744 933 to £1 811 301) compared with a national increase of 16%. The total outpatient department rate of attendance fell by 15% compared with a national fall of 5%. Had our local costs increased in line with the national average, an excess expenditure of £212 705 would have been required for staffing costs. Conclusions. The virtual fracture clinic system was associated with less overall use of staff resources in comparison to national cost data. Adoption of this system nationally may have the potential to achieve significant cost savings. Cite this article: P. J. Jenkins. Fracture clinic redesign reduces the cost of outpatient orthopaedic trauma care. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:33–36. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.52.2000506

Background. The economic crisis has significantly altered the quality of life in Greece. The obvious negative impact on the offered social and health services has been adequately analysed. We aimed to determine whether the economic crisis has influenced the quantity and quality of Orthopaedic research in Greece, as mirrored from the papers presented at the annual meetings of Hellenic Association of Orthopaedic Surgery between the years 2008–2014. Methods. The abstracts of the papers (oral and posters) presented in these meetings have been examined. Details regarding the department of origin were registered. We determined the level of evidence (according to the AAOS classification system), found the amount of papers that were published in PubMed journal and noted if a department of another country participated. Results. Through the years 2008–2014 the papers concerning clinical and basic orthopaedic research that were presented were 146, 207, 304, 331, 318, 234 and 191 respectively. The percentage of those that were level 1 studies was approximately 2%, 3%, 2%, 3%, 2%, 4% and 4% respectively. The percentage of level 2 studies was 2%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 1%, 3% and 0%. Level 3 studies were the 10%, 9%, 7%, 7%, 7%, 9% and 6%. The percentage of level 4 studies was 75%, 74%, 60%, 59%, 61%, 65% and 64%. Level 5 studies were the 10%, 17%, 31%, 27%, 28%, 19% and 26%. Each year, the papers that were published in PubMed were 7%, 21%, 13%, 7%, 6%, 6% and 9%. A department of another country participated in 18%, 17%, 18%, 16%, 16%, 21% and 13% of the total of papers. Conclusion. As the economic crisis deepens, the quantity of the presented papers has been reduced. More importantly, the percentage of level 1 and 2 studies has been remained steadily low. Also, we could remark a reduction on the published studies in PubMed journals. These results raise concerns about the potential impact of the crisis in the future. Level of Evidence. IV

Background. In the UK, over 160,000 total joint replacements are performed annually. About 1% of patients subsequently develop a deep bacterial infection and, if untreated, this can result in severe pain, disability, and death. Costs to the NHS are substantial. The INFORM (Infection Orthopaedic Management) programme aims to address gaps in knowledge relating to treatment of deep prosthetic joint infection through six work packages. The programme is supported by a patient forum and patient-partners working on oversight groups. Methods. Literature reviews and meta-analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies of patients treated for prosthetic hip infection. Analysis of the National Joint Registry to observe trends in infection rates, and identify risk markers for infection and effective treatments. Qualitative interviews with patients and health professionals exploring the impact of infection and its treatment. A multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare patient-centred outcomes after one- or two-stage revision for prosthetic hip infection. An economic evaluation to assess cost-effectiveness of treatments. A survey of patients to explore individuals’ preferences for treatments. Results. Individual patient data has been provided by UK and international centres. Data on over 1.4 million procedures is available from the National Joint Registry. Interviews conducted with 19 patients with prosthetic hip infection and 12 treating surgeons. Information has advised randomised controlled trial methodology. Seven major UK centres recruiting patients to the INFORM randomised controlled trial. Methods for assessment of costs from a health service and societal perspective developed for the randomised controlled trial. Qualitative studies have contributed to the design of a discrete choice questionnaire. Conclusions. Findings from INFORM will establish how patient care and outcomes can be optimised after prosthetic joint infection. Guidance on best clinical practice will be developed. Level of evidence 1–3. Funding statement This abstract presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1210-12005). The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Around 1% of total hip replacements are follow by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). There is uncertainty about best treatment method for PJI, and the most recent high quality systematic reviews in unselected patients indicates that re-infection rates following one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty are relatively similar. In the absence of evidence randomised controlled trials will help to identify the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for PJI. Before such trials are conducted, there is a need to establish reasons for current practice and to identify whether trials are feasible. This study aimed to deliver research that would inform trial design. Specifically, we aimed to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage exchange arthroplasty for patients with PJI after hip replacement and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be possible. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons from 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in the UK. Surgeons were sampled on the basis that they perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty and final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. Surgeons were interviewed face-to-face (n=2) or via telephone (n=10). The interview study took place before design of a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing patient and clinical outcomes after one-stage or two-stage revision arthroplasty. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using a thematic approach, with 25% of transcripts independently double-coded. Results: There is no standard surgical response to the treatment of PJI and surgeons manage a complex balance of factors when choosing a surgical strategy. These include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether evidence supports the emergence of two-stage revision as a method. They described the use of loosely cemented articulating spacers as a way of managing uncertainty about best treatment method. All surgeons were supportive of a randomised trial to compare one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for PJI after hip replacement. Surgeons reported that they would put patients forward for randomisation when there was uncertainty about best treatment. Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons now use revision methods that can better address both clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life, such as loosely cemented articulating spacers. Surgeons thought that a randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage and two-stage exchange joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. The next stage of the work was to design a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, this has been achieved and the trial is now ongoing in the UK

Theatre efficiency is an increasingly important factor as the health service is faced with an ever greater number of patients, but tighter fiscal restrictions. We carried out an audit was to utilise data collected routinely on the Opera Surgical Management System (CHCA, Canada) to look at the efficiency of orthopaedic theatre usage, and to look for potential areas of improvement. The data related to all elective procedures carried out by a single Orthopaedic Consultant in a city hospital, over a one year period. We found that lists frequently started late, with the first patient of the day entering the anaesthetic room after 9 am on over 50% of occasions. The reasons for this were not regularly recorded. There was a wide variability in the length of time taken to anaesthetise and position the patients. Although there was a weak association with the underlying health of the patients (ASA score), the seniority of the anaesthetist was not available for correlation. The turnaround time between cases was variable, with a tendency for it to take longer over the lunchtime hours. Almost a third of lists finished before 4.30 pm, mainly due to patient cancellations, however nearly a third of lists finished after 5.30 pm. We found that data routinely collected on our theatre management system provides useful information that could potentially be used to fine-tune our peri-operative processes, however greater detail about specific timings and delays affecting the patient journey would be required before any recommendations could be made to improve theatre efficiency

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip and knee replacement. We investigated the rates of revision surgery for the treatment of PJI following primary and revision hip and knee replacement, explored time trends, and estimated the overall surgical burden created by PJI. We analysed the National Joint Registry for England and Wales for revision hip and knee replacements performed for a diagnosis of PJI and their index procedures from 2003–2014. The index hip replacements consisted of 623,253 primary and 63,222 aseptic revision hip replacements with 7,642 revisions subsequently performed for PJI; for knee replacements the figures were 679,010 primary and 33,920 aseptic revision knee replacements with 8,031 revisions subsequently performed for PJI. Cumulative incidence functions, prevalence rates and the burden of PJI in terms of total procedures performed as a result of PJI were calculated. Revision rates for PJI equated to 43 out of every 10,000 primary hip replacements (2,705/623,253), i.e. 0.43%(95%CI 0.42–0.45), subsequently being revised due to PJI. Around 158 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision hip replacements performed were subsequently revised for PJI (997/63,222), i.e. 1.58%(1.48–1.67). For knees, the respective rates were 0.54%(0.52–0.56) for primary replacements, i.e. 54 out of every 10,000 primary replacements performed (3,659/679,010) and 2.11%(1.96–2.23) for aseptic revision replacements, i.e. 211 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision replacements performed (717/33,920). Between 2005 and 2013, the risk of revision for PJI in the 3 months following primary hip replacement rose by 2.29 fold (1.28–4.08) and after aseptic revision by 3.00 fold (1.06–8.51); for knees, it rose by 2.46 fold (1.15–5.25) after primary replacement and 7.47 fold (1.00–56.12) after aseptic revision. The rates of revision for PJI performed at any time beyond 3 months from the index surgery remained stable or decreased over time. From a patient perspective, after accounting for the competing risk of revision for an aseptic indication and death, the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision hip replacement for PJI was 0.62%(95%CI 0.59–0.65) following primary and 2.25%(2.08–2.43) following aseptic revision; for knees, the figures were 0.75%(0.72–0.78) following primary replacement and 3.13%(2.81–3.49) following aseptic revision. At a health service level, the absolute number of procedures performed as a consequence of hip PJI increased from 387 in 2005 to 1,013 in 2014, i.e. a relative increase of 2.6 fold. While 70% of those revisions were two-stage, the use of single stage revision increased from 17.6% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2014. For knees, the burden of PJI increased by 2.8 fold between 2005 and 2014. Overall, 74% of revisions were two-stage with an increase in use of single stage from 10.0% in 2005 to 29.0% in 2014. Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip or knee replacement is low, it is rising. Given the burden and costs associated with performing revision joint replacement for prosthetic joint infection and the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip replacement, this has substantial implications for service delivery

The Cochrane Collaboration has produced three new reviews relevant to bone and joint surgery since the publication of the last Cochrane Corner. These are relevant to a wide range of musculoskeletal specialists, and include reviews in lateral elbow pain, osteoarthritis of the big toe joint, and cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients.

Background. In 2009, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) produced the guidance: Low back pain: early management of persistent non-specific low back pain aimed at general practitioners (GPs), consultants, and manual therapists in order to ensure all involved in the care of this complex and often debilitating condition are aware of the options most likely to yield a positive outcome. Two years since the publication of the clinical guidance, services have had ample time to adapt and overcome early teething issues in order to deliver these guidelines. Methods. A retrospective audit was carried out at an out-patient physiotherapy department. One-hundred notes were randomly selected from those who meet the NICE criteria, i.e. non-specific low back pain for six weeks to 12 months in duration. A questionnaire was developed to target National Health Service (NHS) musculoskeletal physiotherapists using electronic media, mail shot and professional networking (clinical interest) groups within the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP). Sixty-one completed questionnaires were returned detailing the barriers for implementation. The results show that 75% of patients received NICE recommended care, and they improved by numerical rating scale (NRS) −3.89, while those who did not, improved by NRS −1.24 producing a significant difference of 2.654 (95% Confidence Interval 1.008–4.300), p≤0.002. The main perceived barriers were too few follow-up slots, local policy, managerial demands, and inadequate training. Conclusions. The conclusions are that while three-quarters of patients are receiving and benefiting from NICE recommended care, many practitioners feel departmental policy and procedures reduce compliance. Conflicts of Interest. None. Source of Funding. Poster funding via the University of Leicester. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or in part; nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting

Purposes of the study and background. Smaller studies indicate that yoga may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. We conducted a randomised trial to evaluate if yoga compared to usual care improves back function in patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain. Summary of the methods used and the results. Outcomes were assessed by postal questionnaires. The setting was 13 non-National Health Service premises. We recruited 313 adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain from primary care. 157 were randomised to usual care. 156 were randomised to a 12-class, gradually-progressing programme of yoga delivered by 12 teachers over three months. All received The Back Book. Primary outcome was back function (Roland Morris Disability Score) at three months. Secondary outcomes: back function at six and 12 months, back pain, pain self-efficacy and general health. Back function improved more in the yoga group: mean difference in changes from baseline at three (−2.17, 95% CI −3.31 to −1.03, p<0.001), six (−1.48, 95% CI −2.62 to −0.33, p=0.011) and 12 months (−1.57, −2.71 to −0.42, p=0.007). Improvement in pain self-efficacy at three and six months in the yoga group. No differences in general health and pain reduction. Two adverse events were reported by controls and 12 by the yoga group – 8 out of 12 reported pain which may have been due to yoga. 63 (40%) were not fully compliant with treatment and 23 (15%) did not attend any yoga classes. Conclusion. At all time points Yoga was more effective than usual care at improving back function. Conflicts of Interest. AT, AS and JDA are self-employed yoga practitioners and may benefit if there is a demand for the yoga programme. AT, AS, the funders and the University of York would share any royalties from the future sale of the yoga manuals and CD.” AT, AS AND JDA had no involvement in the collection of data and in the analysis of the trial. Source of funding. Arthritis Research UK

Summary Statement. Service industry metrics (the net promoter score) are being introduced as a measure of UK healthcare satisfaction. Lower limb arthroplasty, as a ‘service’, scores comparably with the most successful commercial organisations. Background. Satisfaction with care is important to both the patient and the payer. The Net Promoter Score, widely used in the service industry, has been recently introduced to the UK National Health Service as an overarching metric of patient satisfaction and to monitor performance. This questionnaire asks ‘customers’ if they would recommend a service or products to others. Scores range from −100 (everyone is a detractor) to +100 (everyone is a promoter). In industry, a positive score is well regarded, with those over 50 regarded as excellent. Our aims were to assess net promoter scores for joint arthroplasty, to compare these scores with direct measures of patient satisfaction, and to evaluate which factors contributed to net promoter response. Methods. 6912 individuals undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement over a five year period (Jan 2007 – Dec 2011) took part in a prospective cohort study at a single NHS University hospital. Net promoter score, clinical outcomes as measured by PROMS (Oxford Hip or Knee Score and SF-12 score), multi-faceted patient satisfaction questionnaire, demographic data and length of hospital stay were recorded. Data was collected preoperatively and at 1 year post-surgery. Multivariate regression was performed to determine which factors could predict an outcome of ‘promoter’ and ‘detractor’ at 1 year post-surgery. Significance was accepted at p = 0.1 to accommodate the confounding effect of other variables. Results. Net promoter scores for knee and hip replacements were 49 and 71 respectively. Strong correlation was seen between overall satisfaction and whether the patient would recommend the operation to another (r = 0.637), though regression of these factors was modest (R. 2. = 0.406). Only 4 factors were relevant to the net promoter response: pain relief (OR 2.13, CI 1.83 – 2.49), meeting expectations (OR 2.57, CI 2.24 – 2.97), hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI 2.03 – 2.68) and arthroplasty type (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 – 3.17). These factors drove a model able to explain 95% of the variation in net promoter score. Conclusions. This is the first analysis of net promoter score for joint arthroplasty, and demonstrates values that compare favourably with the services provided by the most successful commercial organizations. The UK Department of Health describes this score as a measure of patient satisfaction. This is perhaps not completely accurate, as only a third of the variation in one response can be explained by the other, suggesting that although clearly related, these concepts are not the same. Pain relief, meeting of expectations of surgery, the hospital experience and whether the hip or knee joint is replaced are the only relevant factors in determining the net promoter response. Factors thought to influence clinical outcome such as depression, number of comorbidities, age and gender carry no influence with this metric