A huge commitment is required from patients and families who undergo a limb reconstruction procedure using the hexapod frame. This includes turning the struts on the frame, pin site care and intensive rehabilitation. Montpetit et al (2009) discovered that function, participation, engagement in regular activities of daily living is severely impacted during the hexapod lengthening period. Due to the long duration and burden for families, it is imperative that healthcare professionals understand the impact that the hexapod frame has on functional abilities and health related quality of life (HRQL). This project involved a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on function and HRQL during two periods of time: (1) when the hexapod frame is applied on the child's lower extremity and (2) when the lengthening phase is completed, and the hexapod frame is removed. Data from 38 children (mean age: 12 years SD 3.8) who completed lower extremity reconstruction using the hexapod frame and completed either or both the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 Generic Core Scale (PedsQL) and Pediatric Outcomes data Collection Instrument (PODCI) was included. Analysis included, standardized response means, the non-parametric Wilcoxon test and effect size calculation. A Wilcoxon signed rank test for those children who completed pre and post frame PODCI’;s revealed those scores were significantly greater once the hexapod frame was removed (Md=85.10, n=10) compared to during (Md=66.50, n=10) with a large effect size, r= 1.45. Similar, the PedsQL scores improved post frame removal (Md= 66.30, n=10) compared to during treatment (Md = 53.34, n=10), with a medium size effect, r= 0.62. All subtests improved once the frame was removed. This study provides essential insights into the burden of the hexapod frame for children and provides valuable information for all allied healthcare professionals targeted interventions for health domains. This study shows that children's function improves once the hexapod frame is removed. However, this study highlights the importance for all healthcare professional to address health domains for the duration of the hexapod procedure where the child scored lower e.g. sports and physical function, pain and comfort, happiness from the PODCI. The PedsQL identified lower mean scores in physical and emotional function

Introduction. There are currently no quality of life Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) that have been validated for patients with conditions requiring lower limb reconstructive surgery. The extent to which current generic and lower limb specific PROMs address relevant dimensions for these patients is unclear. Materials and Methods. We will present an overview of the PROLLIT (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Lower Limb Reconstruction) mixed-methods study. PROLLIT aims to establish the adequacy of current PROMS for this population, whether a new measure is required, and to develop a new measure if appropriate. Results. The PROLLIT study consists of three phases:. Phase 1 is currently underway and involves the development of a conceptual model to map the key quality of life constructs relevant to people undergoing reconstructive surgery, to specify the intended population and uses of a PROM in this field. The conceptual model is being developed in a 3 step process: (i) Existing evidence is being collated in a systematic review of published qualitative research (Qualitative Evidence Synthesis); (ii) a multi-site qualitative study of patients, orthopaedic surgeons, specialist nurses and physiotherapists; (iii) an interdisciplinary panel of patients, surgeons, healthcare professionals and methodologists to finalise the conceptual framework based on the findings of the Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (i) and qualitative study (ii). Phase 2 involves mapping the conceptual framework onto existing PROMs measures that are used with this population to determine whether the constructs identified as important by patients and healthcare professionals are reflected in existing PROMS. Phase 3 involves developing a new outcome measure, if deemed necessary/appropriate during Phase 2. Conclusions. Current PROMS may not adequately address the issues relevant to patients recovering from lower limb reconstructive surgery. Phase 1 and 2 will provide robust evidence as to whether this is the case in order to seek funding for research to develop a new measure (Phase 3)

We recently performed a clinical trial comparing motor sparing blocks (MSB) to periarticular infiltration (PAI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We found that MSBs provided longer analgesia (8.8 hours) than PAI with retention of quadriceps strength, and with similar function, satisfaction, and length of hospital stay. However, its potential increased cost could serve as a barrier to its adoption. Therefore, our aim was to compare the costs of MSBs to PAI following TKA. We conducted a retrospective review of data from our previous RCT. There were 82 patients included in the RCT (n=41 MSB group, n=41 PAI group). We compared the mean total costs associated with each group until hospital discharge including intervention costs, healthcare professional service fees, intraoperative medications, length of stay, and postoperative opioid use. Seventy patients were included (n=35 MSB group, n=35 PAI group). The mean total costs for the MSB group was significantly higher ($1959.46 ± 755.4) compared to the PAI group ($1616.25 ± 488.33), with a mean difference of $343.21 (95% CI = $73.28 to $664.11, p = 0.03). The total perioperative intervention costs for performing the MSB was also significantly higher however postoperative inpatient costs including length of stay and total opioid use did not differ significatnly. Motor sparing blocks had significantly higher mean total and perioperative costs compared to PAI with no significant difference in postoperative inpatient costs. However, its quadricep sparing nature and previously demonstrated prolonged postoperative analgesia can be used to facilitate an outpatient TKA pathway thereby offsetting its increased costs

Introduction. LIMB-Q Kids is a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for children with Lower limb differences (LLDs). The objective is to conduct an international field test study. Materials & Methods. A mixed method multiphase approach was used to develop LIMB-Q Kids. In phase one, a systematic review was conducted to identify concepts from existing PROMs used in research with children with LLDs. A preliminary conceptual framework derived from the systematic review informed an international qualitative study. The data from qualitative interviews were used to form the LIMB-Q Kids, which was further refined through multiple rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with children. Input was obtained from parents and healthcare professionals from Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, UK, and the USA. LIMB-Q Kids was translated and culturally adapted into multiple languages. Results. The final field-test version consists of 11 scales (159 items) that measure appearance, physical function, symptoms (hip, knee, ankle, foot, and leg), leg-related distress, and school, social and psychological function. This version was rigorously translated into Danish and German. Translations that are in progress include Arabic, Finnish, Hindi, Swahili, Portuguese, Spanish, and Luganda. An international field-test study is underway in nine countries (15 sites with a target recruitment of 150 participants per country). At the time of abstract submission, 190 patients from seven sites have completed LIMB-Q Kids. The UK collaborative has worked on language adaption for the UK and is currently validating the score across five paediatric limb reconstruction units. Conclusions. No internationally applicable PROM exists for children with LLDs. We present the current progress in developing and validating such a score. Data from the international field-test study will be used to reduce items and perform psychometric testing of LIMB-Q Kids. The rigorous translation and cultural adaption process will provide versions of LIMB-Q Kids in different languages. Once completed, the LIMB-Q Kids will provide a common metric for outcome assessment for children with lower limb differences internationally

Aims. The adequate provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers has come under considerable scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate staff awareness of PPE guidance, perceptions of PPE measures, and concerns regarding PPE use while caring for COVID-19 patients. In addition, responses of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals (OHCPs) were compared. Methods. The inclusion criteria were all staff working in clinical areas of the hospital. Staff were invited to take part using a link to an online questionnaire advertised by email, posters displayed in clinical areas, and social media. Questions grouped into the three key themes - staff awareness, perceptions, and concerns - were answered using a five-point Likert scale. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare results across all three groups of staff. Results. Overall, 315 staff took part in our study. There was a high awareness of PPE guidance at 84.4%, but only 52.4% of staff reported adequate PPE provision. 67.9% were still keen to come to work, despite very high levels of anxiety relating to contracting COVID-19 despite wearing PPE. Doctors had significantly higher ratings for questions relating to PPE awareness compared to other staff groups, while nursing staff and OHCPs had significantly higher levels of anxiety compared to doctors in relation to PPE and contracting COVID-19 (p < 0.05 using a Kruskal-Wallis test). Conclusion. We believe four recommendations are key to improve PPE measures and decrease anxiety: 1) nominated ward/department PPE champions; 2) anonymized reporting for PPE concerns; 3) formal PPE education sessions; and 4) drop-in counselling sessions for staff. We hope the insight and recommendations from this study can improve the PPE situation and maintain the health and wellbeing of the clinical work force, in order to care for COVID-19 patients safely and effectively

The Osteoarthritis Hip and Knee Service (OAHKS) was introduced in 2006 and the aim of this service was to ensure early assessment and monitoring, optimise non-operative and pre-operative management, and ensure equitable access to surgical treatment. Patients were prioritised and monitored for disease deterioration using the Multi-Attribute Arthritis Prioritisation Tool (MAPT). All patients who were referred for assessment by the OAHKS between December 2006 and April 2009 were identified. Data was collected from the OAHKS computer database, hospital patient information computer system and the Department of Health databases. Scores were identified for patients who underwent joint replacement surgery (JRS) following pre-operative MAPT. Demographic and clinical data was collected prospectively and statistically analysed. Demographic data included sex, age and ethnicity. Patient clinical data included referral source and time to initial OAHKS appointment, BMI, co-morbidities, MAPT scores, referrals to other healthcare professionals and outcome of OAHKS appointment. In total, 768 patients (296 males and 472 females) were referred to OAHKS between December 2006 and April 2009. Patients ranged in age from 20 to 94 years with a mean age of 68.22 years at initial review. Patients referred were from 20 different ethnic backgrounds. The median time to initial appointment was 80.5 days (IQR 36.5-99 days). There were 656 (85.4%) patients referred from their GP and 89 referrals were from other sources. Eighty-nine per cent of patients (n=686) were screened for co- morbidities. Of these patients, 58% had hypertension, 20.8% had diabetes mellitus, 19.3% had ischaemic heart disease, and 19.8% had a psychosocial illness. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 32.71 (median 32.01). Only 42.3% patients had some form of conservative management modality prior to attending OAHKS. A total of 1061 referrals to other healthcare professionals were made. Physiotherapy (48.6%), hydrotherapy (40%) and dietician (16.1%) were the most common referrals. Referrals to the orthopaedic surgeon accounted for 15.7% total referrals. MAPT scores increased in 229 patients, decreased in 306 patients and were unchanged in 25 patients. From December 2006–March 2009, 269 patients had MAPT scoring assessment pre-operatively. Of those patients who had surgery 52% had TKR, 40.5% THR, 5.5% UKR and 1.85% hip resurfacing. The OAHKS has enabled patients with osteoarthritis to be rapidly assessed leading to a reduction in outpatient waiting times. Patients suitable for JRS are prioritised according to clinical need and MAPT scores. Thus, patients with greatest clinical need have received surgery much sooner than previously

The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardised assessment tools designed to record adverse events (AEs) in orthopaedic patients. The primary objective was to compare AEs recorded prospectively by orthopaedic surgeons compared to trained independent clinical reviewers. The secondary objective was to compare AEs following spine, hip, knee, and shoulder orthopaedic procedures. Over a 10-week period, three orthopaedic spine surgeons recorded AEs following all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Three orthopaedic surgeons (hip, knee, and shoulder) also recorded AEs for their elective procedures. Two independent reviewers used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs after reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses, physiotherapists). At discharge, AEs recorded by the surgeons and independent reviewers were recorded in a database. AE data for 164 patients were collected (48 spine, 52 hip, 33 knee, and 31 shoulder). Overall, 98 AEs were captured by the independent reviewers, compared to 14 captured by the surgeons. Independent reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons overall, as well as for each individual group (i.e. spine, hip, knee, shoulder) (p2), but surgeons failed to record minor events that were captured by the independent reviewers (e.g. urinary retention and cutaneous injuries; AEs Grade 0.05). AEs were reported in 21 (43.8%), 19 (36.5%), 12 (36.4%), and five (16.1%) spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients, respectively. Nearly all reported AEs required only simple or minor treatment (e.g. antibiotic, foley catheter) and had no effect on outcome. Two patients experienced AEs that required invasive or complex treatment (e.g. surgery, monitored bed) that had a temporary effect on outcome. Similar complication rates were reported in spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients. Independent reviewers reported more AEs compared to surgeons. These findings suggest that independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following orthopaedic surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs, enhance patient safety and care, and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models

There is increased awareness of the health benefits of regular exercise, and quantifying daily activity has become popular. Consequently, there are an increasing number of devices for measuring physical activity. Healthcare professionals and the general public should know the accuracy and limitations of these devices to better determine which ones suit their needs. Ten devices were tested: one ankle-based device, StepWatch™ Activity Monitor (SAM); two wrist-based devices, FitBit Force™ and Nike+ Fuelband SE; seven waist-based devices, Omron HJ-321 Pedometer, Sportline 340 Strider Pedometer, FitBit One™, Samsung Galaxy S4 utilizing the two most popular applications (Runtastic and Noom Walk), and the iPhone 5 utilizing the two most popular applications (Runtastic and ARGUS). Thirty healthy volunteers, mean age 25.6 years (range 20–30) and mean body mass index 23.5 (range 17.3–29.0), completed the following protocol: (1) walk briskly around a 400-M track simulating community ambulation (2) jog around a 400-M track (3) walk slowly for 10-M, approximating household or workplace pace (4) ascend 10 steps, and (5) descend 10 steps. Each subject completed 3 trials for each task. Manual count was the gold standard (Champion Sports Tally Counter). Accuracy and mean percent error were calculated to demonstrate overall performance and any tendencies for over or undercounting. An Aggregate Accuracy Score was calculated using the mean accuracy of each activity and multiplying by a corresponding weighted value for a prototypical person: 400-M walk represents community ambulation, weighted 40%; 10-M walk represents household and workplace ambulation, weighted 30%; 400-M jog represents jogging or running, weighted 20%; Stair Ascent and Descent represent community and household stair use, weighted 5% each. Device rank based on the Aggregate Accuracy Score was #1 FitBit One™ (98.0%), #2 Omron HJ-321 (97.0%), #3 StepWatch™ Activity Monitor (93.3%), #4 Runtastic Google App (92.7%), #5 Runtastic iPhone App (89.5%), #6 Fitbit Force™ (88.2%), #7 Argus iPhone App (87.2%), #8 Sportline 340 Strider (85.7%), #9 Nike Fuelband (76.1%), #10 Noom Walk Google App (75.9%). The FitBit One™ was 99.5%, 97.8%, 96.7%, 94.3%, and 96.9% accurate in the 400-M walk, 10-M walk, 400-M jog, 10 stair ascent, and 10 stair descent, respectively. The Omron HJ-321 was 99.3%, 94.9%, 97.9%, 92.2%, and 91.3% accurate, respectively. The SAM performed well (>95% accurate) in all activities except one, consistently undercounting the 400-M jog by about 25% (95% CI: −27.2% – −23.9%). The FitBit ForceTM and Nike+ Fuelband SE wrist devices were ≥90% accurate in the 400-M walk and 400-M jog, but ≤83% accurate for all other activities. Three of the 4 smartphone applications were >97% accurate in the 400-M walk, 1 of 4 was 97.3% accurate in the 400-M jog, but all devices performed poorly (≤90% accurate) for all other activities. Smartphones are very popular, but current technology is less accurate for measuring overall daily activity. The relatively inexpensive FitBit One™ and Omron HJ-321 pedometer are highly accurate for quantifying a variety of activities, including running. The StepWatch™ Activity Monitor performs well in lower cadence, but consistently undercounted jogging. Wrist-based activity devices are not as accurate as waist-based. Next generation technologies, including smartphones, should undergo accuracy testing before recommending them for daily use

Aims

Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice.

Aims

The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature.

Aims

Chronic osteomyelitis (COM) of the lower limb in adults can be surgically managed by either limb reconstruction or amputation. This scoping review aims to map the outcomes used in studies surgically managing COM in order to aid future development of a core outcome set.

Aims

There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019.

Aims

This study assesses patient barriers to successful telemedicine care in orthopaedic practices in a large academic practice in the COVID-19 era.

Aims

COVID-19 has compounded a growing waiting list problem, with over 4.5 million patients now waiting for planned elective care in the UK. Views of patients on waiting lists are rarely considered in prioritization. Our primary aim was to understand how to support patients on waiting lists by hearing their experiences, concerns, and expectations. The secondary aim was to capture objective change in disability and coping mechanisms.

Aims

Healthcare systems have been rapidly restructured to meet COVID-19 demand. Clinicians are working to novel clinical guidelines, treating new patient cohorts and working in unfamiliar environments. Trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) has experienced cancellation of routine clinics and operating, with redistribution of the workload and human resources. To date, no studies have evaluated the mental health impact of these changes on the T&O workforce. We report the results of a novel survey on the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of our orthopaedic workforce and the contributory factors.

Aims

Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites.

Aims

The primary aim is to estimate the current and potential number of patients on NHS England orthopaedic elective waiting lists by November 2020. The secondary aims are to model recovery strategies; review the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty from National Joint Registry (NJR) data; and assess the cost of returning to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers.

Aim

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff.

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.

Introduction

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a rapidly implemented restructuring of UK healthcare services. The The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, became a central hub for the provision of trauma services for North Central/East London (NCEL) while providing a musculoskeletal tumour service for the south of England, the Midlands, and Wales and an urgent spinal service for London. This study reviews our paediatric practice over this period in order to share our experience and lessons learned. Our hospital admission pathways are described and the safety of surgical and interventional radiological procedures performed under general anaesthesia (GA) with regards to COVID-19 in a paediatric population are evaluated.