Introduction. Bundled budgeting of payments for joint replacement services has become increasing common in an effort to improve quality while lowering cost. In the US, some Medicare bundled payment programs are voluntary whereas some now are mandatory. Large medical care and medical management organizations have largely been assigned or seized control of management of these programs, leaving the surgeon in a subordinate role. The current abstract describes an experience where surgeons provide leadership and accept responsibility in bundled payment program. Methods. We engaged a collective of 16 different private company orthopedic physician groups to apply to become episode initiators under under the Medicare Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) models 2 and 3. The application process itself provided historical. cost data, enabling each group to independently decide whether or not to proceed with the BPCI. Results. Ultimately, 7 of the private orthopedic groups decided to continue with the BPCI initiative. At the first quarter reconciliation, savings ranged from 9% to 17% across the participating groups. Conclusion. It is possible and potentially preferable for surgeons to take a primary role in accepting responsibility and leadership in the comprehensive care of joint replacement patients. The surgeons are those who determine the indications for and perform the surgery, accept much of the risk, and typically maintain a career long relationship with the patient. As such, the surgeon is also in the best position to achieve the ultimate goals of improved quality which simultaneously controlling cost. Our experience thus far supports that view that the more leadership surgeons provide in value base care provision, the more our patients and health care system will benefit from optimization of care delivery

The high and ever increasing cost of medical care worldwide has driven a trend toward new payment models. Event based models (such as bundled payment for surgical events) have shown a greater potential for care and cost improvement than population-based models (such as accountable care organizations). Since joint replacement is among the most frequent and costly surgical events in medicine, bundled payments for joint replacement episodes have been at the forefront of evolution from fee-for-service to value-based care models and episode-based healthcare reform in general. Our education as surgeons in medical school, residency, fellowship, and in continuing education has been almost entirely non-economic in focus. Yet, we surgeons are now evolving from being primarily responsive for our patients' medical care to being also responsible for all expenditures associated with our patients' care. Similarly, while the cost of our patients' care was not even available to us, every dollar of expenditure for a patient's episode of care is now available to us in some circumstances. For example, a typical primary joint replacement episode may cost $30,000 for a patient insured by Medicare in the US. A surgeon performing 400 joint replacements per year is therefore authorizing upwards of $12M a year in health care spending by making the decisions to perform reconstructive procedures on those patients. The risk for value-based surgical episodes of care can be born by various entities including hospital systems or the surgeons themselves. Recent evidence demonstrates that quality improves and cost decreases more rapidly when surgeons take primary responsibility and risk for episodes of care as compared to when a hospital system or third party takes primary responsibility and risk. Yet, as surgeons, our education in the field of medical economics, value-based episodes of care, and payment reform is only just beginning. The more we understand about the cost and value of the services that we order for our patients, the more leadership can provide as healthcare evolves. The current presentation will describe the specific cost of care for the primary joint replacement patient preliminary experience with accepting risk and responsibility for these patients. It is likely that our patients will be best served if we surgeons provide as much leadership as possible in their care, both medically and economically

I still remember as a green 16-year-old being completely seduced by Newman's portrait of a university – the ideal of a liberal education. I was completely charmed not only by Newman's seductive prose – but by the humanising ideals of the effects of an excellent education. The picture was compelling and inspirational to the daughter of a small farmer whose parents were forced to leave school at 12 years of age to go and earn a living. I was sitting in the “lap of luxury” in a boarding school for girls, whose excellent principal generated a huge respect for, and absolute belief in, the right to and the ability to gain from a rigorous and serious education – which for me at that time in the 1970s extended at least to the end of secondary schooling – a luxury no one in my family had access to in the previous generation. What are universities for? Many authors have considered this issue since Newman's time – in recent times for example Boyd (1979), Graham (2005), Collini (2012). They all, in different ways suggests the need not only to respond to societal / economic needs, but also the need for a more balanced, holistic conception of university activity. Leaders of universities in the 21. st. century must try to articulate this, seek greater understanding of it. We must lobby government for greater recognition, understanding and support for the university's role not only for the present but also for the future. Contingency, vulnerability, adaptability, recognising the provisional nature of knowledge (and control); the caring versus the careless – all of this implies the need for diversity of disciplines, gender and experiences among university leadership in both the national and the international arena

Purpose: Currently, approximately 90% of the 620 graduating orthopaedic residents are planning on entering a post-graduate fellowship. Since January of 2005, two of the largest orthopaedic fellowship match programs, Sports Medicine and Spine Surgery, were dissolved by the NRMP due to gradual decline and reduced participation leaving approximately 70% of applicants in a non-match, decentralized system. Method: An on-line survey was designed by orthopaedic leadership of the AOA with the help of two Harvard business school “match” economists. The survey was administered to PGY-4 orthopaedic residents participating in the AOA Resident Leadership Forum (RLF) of 2007. This data was used as the cornerstone of the RLF for 2007, where the residents deliberated the results of the survey and formulated a brief recommendation list. The survey responses were then tabulated electronically and subjected to market analysis. Results: Sixty-five out of 112 (58%) RLF Residents answered the on-line survey, while 93 (83%) answered audience response questions at the RLF. Thirty percent of residents (19/64) did not have enough time and exposure in their residency to decide which subspecialty to enter. They felt the ideal interview period should be held from January through March of the PGY-4 year. Over 50% of residents felt pressure to accept early offers, had to accept an offer before finishing interviewing or accepted their first offer. Sixty-eight percent (43/64) had to respond to an offer in less than one week. Seventy-six percent (31/47) felt they were given inadequate time to accept or reject offers. Thirty-six percent (17/47) asked for more time to think about an offer. Over 50% (33/65) accepted their first offer and 8% (5/47) had an offer withdrawn because they did not give a response within a designated time frame (exploded offer). Residents cancelled a mean of 2.7 interviews per resident (range 0–9). Eighty-percent (50/64) thought a match would be better than the current system, if most programs would adhere to it. Approximately 47% (41/88) of the residents favored a more centralized process involving all orthopedic surgery fellows, while 35% (31/88) favored a subspecialty based system. Conclusion: The RLF deliberations can be summarized as follows:. The current fellowship hiring process is decentralized, poorly functioning, unraveled and generally unfair. It creates anxiety for residents, residency directors, and fellowship directors alike. Residents are facing exploding offers, limited exposure to fellowship programs and, ultimately, an unraveling hiring market. Residents are in favor of changing the current decentralized process into either a more centralized clearing-house system or subspecialty-based match approach. In either system, accountability for both residents and fellowship directors is critical. Both the AOA and AAOS should devote resources to improve the fellowship hiring process

There is an ongoing revolution in the use of data within orthopaedics and medicine in general, with an imperative for surgeons to be involved from the bottom up and better define the data collection culture. The use of registries plays a major role in the development of “big data” in orthopaedics. There are multiple examples that are already set up and running, both those inspired and set up by clinicians or those where the main stakeholders may lay people, with some input from clinicians. The British Limb Reconstruction society is no exception, with registries for lengthening nails and pilon fractures due to roll out imminently. The BLRS has tasked this years BOA clinical leadership fellow to investigate the current state of registries among the specialist orthopaedic societies. In particular, comparison of the already well established registries and national audits with the development of registry projects in the smaller societies. The issues of funding, consent, infrastructure and governance each infer particular challenges when translating the methods of the larger registries to the needs and resources of a smaller group. We have aimed to consider these challenges in relation to the set-up of the BLRS registries in order to better understand the potential future pitfalls and opportunities

Quality Improvement (QI) is of increasing importance with its inclusion on training curricula and requirement for it in revalidation. Junior Doctors are a valuable, yet under utilised resource for NHS Trusts in patient safety/Quality Improvement activity. A Trainee led QI Academy, supported and administered by Medical Education was launched in our Trust. It offered education on Leadership and Management and support for projects from the Trust Service and Development teams. The QI Academy launch evening attracted over 60 Trainees and 17 QI projects were adopted. Subsequently a further 9 projects have been started and a number published in peer reviewed journals and presented internationally. The Academy was an attractive and supportive method of engaging new groups of doctors. QI is not as constrained as simple audit, and as such, engaging trainees has proven to be easier. Collaboration between a Core Faculty, Trainees and Trust Management ensured adequate and sustainable support for all projects, avoided duplication and fostered a closer relationship. We highly recommend Trust support of QI in junior doctors through Medical Education. Trusts benefit from improvements in patient care and quality whilst trainees learn valuable skills and benefit from presentations and publications

The key points of this talk are: (a) STEM skills are increasingly required by employers across a broad range of sectors. These skills help to foster systemic and critical thinking in a number of areas and are not confined to four subjects alone. Due to the increasing digitalisation of society and the world of work the demand for STEM skills will only intensify. (b) There is a need to increase the number of STEM-qualified people in Ireland and across Europe with employers highlighting a specific shortage of people with these skills. This is particularly apparent as concerns engineers, computer scientists and data analysts. To achieve this, it is necessary to raise awareness of the STEM-related careers that are available and to promote participation in STEM courses and studies, notably among women. (c) Parents, teachers, employers and education and training providers, both through their individual and joint actions, have a key role to play in fostering STEM skills acquisition.

Orthopaedics has been left behind in the worldwide drive towards diversity and inclusion. In the UK, only 7% of orthopaedic consultants are female. There is growing evidence that diversity increases innovation as well as patient outcomes. This paper has reviewed the literature to identify some of the common issues affecting female surgeons in orthopaedics, and ways in which we can address them: there is a wealth of evidence documenting the differences in the journey of men and women towards a consultant role. We also look at lessons learned from research in the business sector and the military. The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ is out of date and needs to enter the 21st century: microaggressions in the workplace must be challenged; we need to consider more flexible training options and support trainees who wish to become pregnant; mentors, both male and female, are imperative to provide support for trainees. The world has changed, and we need to consider how we can improve diversity to stay relevant and effective.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-10:893–899.

It has been established that a dedicated orthopaedic trauma room (DOTR) provides significant clinical and organizational benefits to the management of trauma patients. After-hours care is associated with surgeon fatigue, a high risk of patient complications, and increased costs related to staffing. However, hesitation due to concerns of the associated opportunity cost at the hospital leadership level is a major barrier to wide-spread adoption. The primary aim of this study is to determine the impact of dedicated orthopaedic trauma room (DOTR) implementation on operating room efficiency. Secondly, we sought to evaluate the associated financial impact of the DOTR, with respect to both after-hours care costs as well as the opportunity cost of displaced elective cases. This was a retrospective cost-analysis study performed at a single academic-affiliated community hospital in Toronto, Canada. All patients that underwent the most frequently performed orthopedic trauma procedures (hip hemiarthroplasty, open reduction internal fixation of the ankle, femur, elbow and distal radius), over a four-year period from 2016-2019 were included. Patient data acquired for two-years prior and two-years after the implementation of a DOTR were compared, adjusting for the number of cases performed. Surgical duration and number of day-time and after-hours cases was recorded pre- and post-implementation. Cost savings of performing trauma cases during daytime and the opportunity cost of displacing elective cases by performing cases during the day was calculated. A sensitivity analysis accounting for varying overtime costs and hospital elective case profit was also performed. 1960 orthopaedic cases were examined pre- and post-DOTR. All procedures had reduced total operative time post-DOTR. After accounting for the total number of each procedure performed, the mean weighted reduction was 31.4% and the mean time saved was 29.6 minutes per surgery. The number of daytime surgical hours increased 21%, while nighttime hours decreased by 37.8%. Overtime staffing costs were reduced by $24,976 alongside increase in opportunity costs of $22,500. This resulted in a net profit of $2,476. Our results support the premise that DOTRs improve operating room efficiency and can be cost efficient. Through the regular scheduling of a DOTR at a single hospital in Canada, the number of surgeries occurring during daytime hours increased while the number of after-hours cases decreased. The same surgeries were also completed nearly one-third faster (30 minutes per case) on average. Our study also specifically addresses the hesitation regarding potential loss of profit from elective surgeries. Notably, the savings partially stem from decreased OR time as well as decreased nurse overtime. Widespread implementation can improve patient care while still remaining financially favourable

The 2020-2021 Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) match year was altered on an unprecedented scale. Visiting electives were cancelled at a national level, and the CaRMS interview tour was moved to a virtual model. These changes posed a significant challenge to both prospective students and program directors (PDs), requiring each party to employ alternative strategies to distinguish themselves throughout the match process. For a variety of reasons, including a decline in applicant interest secondary to reduced job prospects, the field of orthopaedic surgery was identified as vulnerable to many of these changes, creating a window of opportunity to evaluate their impacts on students and recruiting residency programs. This longitudinal survey study was disseminated to match-year medical students (3rd and 4th year) with an interest in orthopaedic surgery, as well as orthopaedic surgery program directors. Responses to the survey were collected using an electronic form designed in Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2021, Provo, Utah, USA). Students were contacted through social media posts, as well as by snowball sampling methods through appropriate medical student leadership intermediates. The survey was disseminated to all 17 orthopedic surgery program directors in Canada. A pre-match and post-match iteration of this survey were designed to identify whether expectations differed from reality regarding the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the CaRMS match 2020-2021 process. A similar package was disseminated to Canadian orthopaedic surgery program directors pre-match, with an option to opt-in for a post-match survey follow-up. This survey had a focus on program directors’ opinions of various novel communication, recruitment, and assessment strategies, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Students’ responses to the loss of visiting electives were negative. Despite a reduction in financial stress associated with reduced need to travel (p=0.001), this was identified as a core component of the clerkship experience. In the case of virtual interviews, students’ initial trepidation pre-CaRMS turned into a positive outlook post-CaRMS (significant improvement, p=0.009) indicating an overall satisfaction with the virtual interview format, despite some concerns about a reduction in their capacity to network. Program directors and selection committee faculty also felt positively about the virtual interview format. Both students and program directors were overwhelmingly positive about virtual events put on by both school programs and student-led initiatives to complement the CaRMS tour. CaRMS was initially developed to facilitate the matching process for both students and programs alike. We hope to continue this tradition of student-led and student-informed change by providing three evidence-based recommendations. First, visiting electives should not be discontinued in future iterations of CaRMS if at all possible. Second, virtual interviews should be considered as an alternative approach to the CaRMS interview tour moving forward. And third, ongoing virtual events should be associated with a centralized platform from which programs can easily communicate virtual sessions to their target audience

Adipose derived mesenchymal stromal cells (ASC) are adult stem cells exhibiting functional properties that have open the way for cell-based clinical therapies. Primarily, their capacity of multilineage differentiation has been explored in a number of strategies for skeletal tissue regeneration. More recently, MSCs have been reported to exhibit immunosuppressive as well as healing capacities, to improve angiogenesis and prevent apoptosis or fibrosis through the secretion of paracrine mediators. Among the degenerative diseases associated with aging, osteoarthritis is the most common pathology and affects 16% of the female population over 65 years. Up to now, no therapeutic option exists to obtain a sustainable improvement of joint function beside knee arthroplasty. This prompted us to propose adipose derived stem cells as a possible cell therapy. We performed pre-clinical models of osteoarthritis and showed that a local injection of ASC showed a reduction of synovitis, reduction of osteophytes, joint stabilization, reducing the score of cartilage lesions. This work was completed by toxicology data showing the excellent tolerance of the local injection of ADSC and biodistribution showing the persistence of cells after 6 months in murine models. The aim of the ADIPOA trial is to demonstrate the efficacy of adipose derived stem cells therapy in knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a phase 2/3 controlled multicenter study controlled against standard of care. Safety and feasibility as well as dose response was previously assessed in the ADIPOA FP7 project. The bi-centric phase I clinical trial in Montpellier (France) and Würzburg (Germany) included 18 patients with moderate to severe knee OA, each patient received a single injection of autologous ADSC, in a open scale up dose trial, starting form 2 10 6 cells to 50 106 cells. The 107 dose appears to be well tolerated and showed preliminary response in terms of decreasing local inflammation. This first study confirmed the feasibility and safety of local injection of ADSC in knee OA and suggested the most effective dose (107 autologous ADSC). This work constituted a significant step forward treating this disease with ADSC to demonstrate safety of the procedure. we conduct a prospective multicenter randomized Phase 2/3 study with 86 patients with moderate to severe knee OA to demonstrate superiority of stem cell-based therapy compared to standard of care (SOC) in terms in reduction in clinical symptoms (WOMAC score) and structural benefit (assessed by T1rhoMRI that allow quantification of cartilage proteoglycan content). This project will offer EU a unique leadership in OA with strong positions in EU and US due to patents and quality of the methodology to demonstrate efficiency of ADSC. ADIPOA brings together a unique combination of expertises and leaders in clinical rheumatology, MRI specialists, Stem cell Institutes, national GMP grade adipose derived stem cell production platform (ECELLFRANCE) and SME specialized in cell therapy trials in the EU. The production of the cells will be granted to EFS through ECELLFRANCE national platform, which have the GMP facility and will work as a contracting manufacturing organization. The expertise, leadership and critical mass achieved by this Consortium should enable breakthroughs in ASC engineering directly amenable for clinical applications in OA

Objectives. As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. Methods. All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation. Results. The 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination. Conclusions. Orthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology. Cite this article: J. S. Rendon, M. Swinton, N. Bernthal, M. Boffano, T. Damron, N. Evaniew, P. Ferguson, M. Galli Serra, W. Hettwer, P. McKay, B. Miller, L. Nystrom, W. Parizzia, P. Schneider, A. Spiguel, R. Vélez, K. Weiss, J. P. Zumárraga, M. Ghert. Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–314. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2016-0192.R1

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented times worldwide. From lockdowns to masks now being part of our everyday routine, to the halting of elective surgeries, the virus has touched everyone and every part of our personal and professional lives. Perhaps, now more than ever, our ability to adapt, change and persevere is critical to our survival. This year's closed meeting of The Knee Society demonstrated exactly those characteristics. When it became evident that an in-person meeting would not be feasible, The Knee Society leadership, under the direction of President John Callaghan, MD and Program Chair Craig Della Valle, MD created a unique and engaging meeting held on September 10–12, 2020. Special recognition should be given to Olga Foley and Cynthia Garcia at The Knee Society for their flexibility and creativeness in putting together a world-class flawless virtual program. The Bone & Joint Journal is very pleased to partner with The Knee Society to once again publish the proceedings of the closed meeting of the Knee Society. The Knee Society is a United States based society of highly selected members who have shown leadership in education and research in knee surgery. It invites up to 15% international members; this includes some of the key opinion leaders in knee surgery from outside the USA. Each year, the top research papers from The Knee Society meeting will be published and made available to the wider orthopaedic community in The Bone & Joint Journal. The first such proceedings were published in BJJ in 2019. International dissemination should help to fulfil the mission and vision of the Knee Society of advancing the care of patients with knee disorders through leadership, education and research. The quality of dissemination that The Bone & Joint Journal provides should enhance the profile of this work and allow a larger body of surgeons, associated healthcare professionals and patients to benefit from the expertise of the members of The Knee Society. The meeting is one of the highlights of the annual academic calendar for knee surgeons. With nearly every member in attendance virtually throughout the 3 days, the top research papers from the membership were presented and discussed in a virtual format that allowed for lively interaction and discussion. There are 75 abstracts presented. More selective proceedings with full papers will be available after a robust peer review process in 2021, both online and in The Bone & Joint Journal. The meeting commenced with the first group of scientific papers focused on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Dr Berry and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic further help to clarify the issue of serology and aspirate results to diagnose TKA PJI in the acute postoperative setting. 177 TKA's had an aspiration within 12 weeks and 22 were proven to have PJI. Their results demonstrated that acute PJI after TKA should be suspected within 6 weeks if CRP is ≥81 mg/L, synovial WBCs are ≥8500 cells/μL, and/or synovial neutrophils≥86%. Between 6– 12 weeks, concerning thresholds include a CRP ≥ 32 mg/L, synovial WBC ≥7450, and synovial neutrophils ≥ 84%. While historically the results of a DAIR procedure for PJI have been variable, Tom Fehring's study showed promise with the local delivery of vancomycin through the Intraosseous route improved early results. New member Simon Young contrasted the efficacy of the DAIR procedure when comparing early infections to late acute hematogenous PJI. DAIR failed in 63% of late hematogenous PJIs (implant age>1 year) compared to 36% of early (<1year) PJIs. Dr Masri demonstrated in a small group of patients that those with well-functioning articulating spacers can retain their spacers for over 12 months with no difference in infection from those that had a formal two stage exchange. The mental toll of PJI was demonstrated in a longitudinal study by Doug Dennis, where patient being treated with 2 stage exchange had 4x higher rates of depression compared to patient undergoing aseptic revision. The second session focused on both postoperative issues with regards to anticoagulation and manipulation. Steven Haas demonstrated high complication rates with utilization of anticoagulation for treatment of postoperative pulmonary embolism with modern therapeutic anticoagulation (warfarin, enoxaparin, Xa inhibitors) with the Xa inhibitors demonstrating lower complication rates. Two papers focused on the topic of manipulation. Mark Pagnano presented data on timing of manipulation under anesthesia up to even past 12 months. While gains were modest, a subset of patients did achieve substantial gains in ROM > 20degrees even after 3 months post op. Dr Westrich's study demonstrated no difference in MUA outcomes with either IV sedation or neuraxial anesthesia although the length of stay was shorter in the IV sedation group. Several studies in Session II focused on kinematics and femoral component position. Dr Li's in vivo kinematic study during weightbearing flexion and gait demonstrated that several knees rotated with a lateral pivot motion and not all knees can be described with a single motion character. Dr Mayman and his group utilized a computational knee model to demonstrate that additional distal femoral resection results in increasing levels of mid -flexion instability and cautioned against the use of additional bony resection as the first line for flexion contractures. Using computer navigation, Dr Huddleston's study nicely outlined the variability in femoral component rotation to achieve a rectangular flexion gap utilizing a gap balanced method. The third session opened the meeting on Friday morning. The focus was on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and the increasing utilization of robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty. David Murray showed using registry data that for patient with higher comorbidities (ASA >3), UKA was safer and more cost effective than TKA while Dr Della Valle's group demonstrated overall lower average healthcare costs in UKA patients compared to TKA in the first 10 years after surgery. Dr Geller assessed UKA survivorship among 3 international registries. While survivorship varied by nation and designs, certain designs consistently had better overall performance. Dr Nunley and his group showed robotic navigation UKA significantly reduced outliers in alignment and overhang compared to manual UKA. Dr Catani's data demonstrated that full thickness cartilage loss should still be considered a requirement for UKA success even with robotic assistance. Despite a high dislocation rate of 4%, Mr Dodd demonstrated high survivorship for lateral UKA despite historical contraindications. The growing evidence for robotics TKA was demonstrated in two studies. Professor Haddad showed less soft tissue injury, reduced bone trauma and improved accuracy or rTKA compared to manual TKA while Dr Gustke single surgeon study showed his rTKA had improved forgotten joint scores and less ligament releasing required for balancing. Despite these finding, Dr Lee's study demonstrated that a robotic TKA could not guarantee excellent pain relief and other factors such a patient expectations and psychological factors play a role. Our fourth session was devoted to machine learning and smart tools and modeling. Dr Meneghini used machine learning algorithms to identify optimal alignment outcomes that correlated with patient outcomes. Several parameters such as native tibial slope, femoral sagittal position and coronal limb alignment correlated with outcomes. Along the same lines, Bozic and coauthors demonstrated that using AI algorithms incorporated with PROM's improved levels of shared decision making and patient satisfaction. Dr Lombardi demonstrated that a mobile patient engagement platform that provided smart phone-based exercise and education was comparable to traditional methods. Dr Mahfouz demonstrated the accuracy of using ultrasound to produce 3D models of the bone compared to conventional CT based strategies and Dr Mahoney showed the valued of a preop 3D model in reproducing more normal knee kinematics. The last two talks of the session focused on some of the positives of the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the embracing of telemedicine by patients and surgeons as demonstrated by Dr Slover and the increasing and far reaching educational opportunities made available to residents and fellows during the pandemic. Session five focused on risk stratification and optimization prior to TKA. Dr O'Connor demonstrated that that the implementation of an optimization program preoperatively reduced length of stay and ED visits, and Charles Nelson's study showed that risk stratification tool can lower complication rates in obese patients undergoing TKA comparable to those that are nonobese. Dr Markel's study demonstrated that those who have preoperative depression and anxiety are at higher risk of complications and readmissions after surgery and these issues should be addressed preoperatively. Interestingly, a study by Dr Callaghan demonstrated that care improvement pathways have not lowered the gap in complications for morbidly obese patients undergoing TKA, Dr Barsoum argued that the overall complication rates were low and this patient cohort had significant gains in PROMS after TKA that would not be experienced if arbitrary cutoff for limited surgery were established. The final session on Friday, Session six, had several well done and interesting studies. There continues to be mounting evidence that liposomal bupivacaine has little effect on managing post-operative pain to warrant its increased use. Bill Macaulay and colleagues showed no change in pain scores, opioid consumption and functional scores when liposomal bupivacaine was discontinued at a large academic medical center. Dr Bugbee importantly demonstrated that a supervised ambulation program reduced falls in the early postoperative period. Several paper on healthcare economics were presented. Rich Iorio showed that stratifying complexity of total joint cases between hospitals with a system can be efficient and cost savings while Dr Jiranek demonstrated in his study that complex TKAs can be identified preoperatively and are associated with prolonged operative time and cost of care and consideration should be given in future reimbursement models to a complexity modifier. Dr Springer, in their evaluation of Medicare bundled payment models, demonstrated that providers and hospitals in historical bundled models that became efficient were penalized in the new model, forcing many groups to drop out and return to a fee for service model. Ron Delanois important work showed that social determinants can have a major negative impact on outcomes following TKA. Our final day on Saturday opened with Session seven, and several interesting paper on metal ions/debris in TKA. Dr Whitesides simulator study showed the absence of scratches and material loss in a ceramic TKA compared with Co-Cr TKA and suggested an advantage to this material in patients with metal sensitivity. Conversely, in a histological study of failed TKA, perivascular lymphocytic infiltration was not associated with worse clinical outcomes or differences in revision in a series of 617 aseptic revisions, 19% of which had PVLI found on histology. The Mayo group and Dr Trousdale however, noted that serum metal ion levels can be helpful in identifying implant failure in a group of revision TKAs, especially those with metallic junctions. Dr Dalury demonstrated nicely that use of maximally conforming inserts did not have a negative effect on implant loosening in a series of 76 revision TKA's at an average follow up of 7 years, while Kevin Garvin and his group showed no difference in end of stem pain between cemented and cementless stems in revision TKA. The final two studies in the session by Bolognesi and Peters respectively showed that metaphyseal cones continue to demonstrate excelled survivorship in rTKA setting despite extensive bone loss. Session eight was highlighted by a large series of revision reported by new member Dr Schwarzkopf, who showed that revision TKA done by high volume surgeons demonstrated better outcomes and lower revision rates compared to surgeon who did less than 18 rTKA's per year. Dr Maniar importantly showed that preoperatively, patients with high activity level and low pain and indicated by a high preop forgotten joint score did poorly following TKA while David Ayers nicely demonstrated that KOOS scores that assess specific postoperative outcomes can predict patient dissatisfaction after TKA. The final paper in this session by Max Courtney showed that the majority of surgical cancellations are due to medical issues, yet a minority of these undergo any intervention specifically for that condition, but they resulted in a delay of 5 months. The first two studies of Session nine focused on polyethylene thickness. Dr Backstein demonstrated no difference in KSS scores, change in ROM and aseptic revision rates based on polyethylene thickness in a series of 195 TKA's. An interesting lab study by Dr Tim Wright showed a surprising consistency in liner thickness choice among varying levels of surgeon experience that did not correlate with applied forces or gap stability estimates. Two studies looked specifically at the issue of tibial loosening and implant design. Nam and colleagues were not able to demonstrate concerning findings for increasing tibial loosening in a tibial baseplate with a shortened tibial keel at short term follow up, while Lachiewicz demonstrated a 19% revision or revision pending rate in 223 cemented fixed bearing ATTUNE TKA at a mean of 30 months. Our final session of the meeting, began with encouraging news, that despite only currently capturing about 40% of TJA's done in the US, the American Joint Replacement Registry data is representative of data in other representative US databases. An interesting study presented by Robert Barrack looked at bone remodeling in the proximal tibia after cemented and cementless TKA of two different designs. No significant difference was noted among the groups with the exception of the cemented thicker cobalt chrome tray which demonstrated significantly more bone mineral density loss. Along the same lines, a study out of Dr Bostrom's lab demonstrated treatment of a murine tibial model with iPTH prevents fibrous tissue formation and enhances bone formation in cementless implants. New Member Jamie Howard showed no difference in implant migration and kinematics of a single radius cementless design using either a measured resection or gap balancing technique and Dr Cushner show no difference in blood loss with cemented or cementless TKA with the use of TKA. The final two studies looked at staging and bilateral TKA's. Peter Sharkey showed that simultaneous TKA's were associated with higher complication compared to staged TKA and that staged TKA with less than a 90-day interval was not associated with higher risk. However, Mark Figgie showed that patients undergoing simultaneous TKA compared to staged TKA, missed 17 fewer days of work. In spite of the virtual nature of the meeting, there were some outstanding scientific interactions and the material presented will continue to generate debate and to guide the direction of knee arthroplasty as we move forwards

Abstract. Background. Recruitment of patients to participate in Randomised control trials (RCTs) is a challenging task, especially for trauma trials in which the identification and recruitment are time-limited. Multiple strategies have been tried to improve the participation of doctors and recruitment of patients. Aim. To study the effect of a trainee advocate (trainee Principal investigator-tPI) on influencing junior doctors to take part in trials and its effect on recruitment for a multicenter prospective hip fracture RCT. Methods. A retrospective study comparing the number of junior doctors participating in trials and patients recruited before and after the introduction of informal tPI role at UHW Cardiff. Results. The target recruitment set by the central trial unit was 9/month. Excluding the research team, there were 6 trainees actively recruiting in the before period (Feb’19-July’19) in comparison with 12 in the after period (Sept’19-Feb’20). TPI had a direct influence on 9 of the 11 trainees to get involved in the trials by guidance and nudging. There were 105 eligible patients of which 62 were recruited (59% of eligible pts, 115% of target) in the before period in comparison with 102 recruited (76% of eligible pts, 189% of target) out of the 135 eligible patients in the after period. The proportion of recruitment done by the research team to that of trainees was 79%:21% in the before period in comparison with 30%:70% in the after period further improving to 15%:85% in the last 3 months. Conclusion. TPI can work alongside the PI and research team to be a valuable link person coordinating and engaging local trainees to take part in trials. This may be particularly beneficial in hospitals where there is no dedicated research team. TPI role could be formalized for many trials and can be used as a leadership & management potential building experience for trainees. 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

The unparalleled events of the year 2020 continue to evolve and challenge the worldwide community on a daily basis. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on all aspects of our lives, and has caused major morbidity and mortality around the globe. The impact of COVID-19 on the practice of orthopedic surgery has been substantial with practice shutdowns, elective surgery restrictions, heightened utilization of telemedicine platforms and implementation of precautionary measures for in-person clinic visits. During this transition period the scholarly and educational pursuits of academic surgeons have been de-emphasized as the more immediate demands of clinical practice survivorship have been the priority. This unavoidable focus on clinical practice has heightened the importance of orthopedic subspecialty societies in maintaining an appropriate level of attention on research and educational activities. Under the outstanding presidential leadership of Robert Barrack, MD, The Hip Society adapted to the profound challenges of 2020, and maintained strong leadership in the realms of education and research. The recent 2020 summer meeting of the Hip Society was a testimonial to the resilience and dedication of the Society members to ongoing innovation in research and education. Due to travel and social distancing restrictions the 2020 summer meeting was transitioned from an in-person to a virtual meeting format. Dr Barrack and Program Chair Dr John Clohisy assisted with oversight of the meeting, while Olga Foley and Cynthia Garcia ensured the success of the meeting with remarkable planning and organization. These collaborative efforts resulted in an organized, well-attended, high level scientific meeting with engaging discussion and a remarkable virtual conference environment. The Bone & Joint Journal is very pleased to partner with The Hip Society to publish the proceedings of this very unique virtual meeting. The Hip Society is based in the United States and membership is granted to select individuals for leadership accomplishments in education and research related to hip disease. The Society is focused on the mission of advancing the knowledge and treatment of hip disorders to improve the lives of patients. The vision of the Hip Society is to lead in the discovery and dissemination of knowledge related to disorders of the hip. The annual closed meeting is one of the most important events of the society as this gathering highlights timely, controversial and novel research contributions from the membership. The top research papers from The Hip Society meeting will be published and made available to the wider orthopedic community in The Bone & Joint Journal. This partnership with The Bone & Joint Journal enhances the mission and vision of The Hip Society by international dissemination of the meeting proceedings. Given the far-reaching circulation of The Bone & Joint Journal the highest quality work is available to an expanding body of surgeons, associated healthcare providers and patients. Ultimately, this facilitates the overarching Hip Society goal of improving the lives of our patients. The 2020 virtual Hip Society meeting was characterized by outstanding member attendance, high quality paper presentations and robust discussion sessions. The meeting was held over two days and encompassed 58 open paper presentations divided into ten sessions with moderated discussions after each session. All papers will be presented in this issue in abstract form, while selected full papers passing our rigorous peer review process will be available online and in The Bone & Joint Journal in a dedicated supplement in 2021. The first session of the meeting focused on issues related to complex primary THA and osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Dr Gross presented on the conversion of hip fusion to THA in 28 patents at a mean 7 years. He reported a high clinical success rate, yet complications of heterotopic ossification and neurologic injury were relatively common. Consideration of heterotopic ossification prophylaxis and the selective use of a constrained liner were recommended. Dr Pagnano summarized the use of various contemporary porous acetabular components in 38 hips in the setting of prior pelvic radiation. The mean follow-up was 5 years and 10 year survivorship was 100% with all implants radiographically fixed. Dr Bolognesi's study demonstrated that THA in solid organ transplant patients is associated with higher risk for facility placement, transfusions and readmissions. This patient population also has increased mortality risk (4.3% risk at 1 year) especially lung transplant patients. The second group of papers focused on femoral head osteonecrosis. Dr Iorio presented single center data demonstrating that CT scan was a useful adjunct for diagnosis in the staging work-up for cancer, yet was not useful for ARCO staging and treatment decision-making. On the basic science side, Dr Goodman utilized a rabbit model of steroid-induced femoral head osteonecrosis to determine that immunomodulation with IL-4 has the potential to improve bone healing after core decompression. The session was concluded by Dr Nelson's study of ceramic-on-ceramic THA in 108 osteonecrosis patients. The median 12 year results were outstanding with marked increases in PROs, maintenance of high activity levels, and a 3.7% revision rate. In the second session attention was directed to THA instability and spinopelvic mobility. Dr Sierra presented a machine learning algorithm for THA dislocation risk. Two modifiable variables (anterior/lateral approach, elevated liner) were most influential in minimizing dislocation risk. Dr Taunton's study demonstrated a deep learning artificial intelligence model derived from postoperative radiographs to predict THA dislocation risk. High sensitivity and negative predictive value suggest that this model may be helpful in assessing postoperative dislocation risk. In reviewing a large single-center, multiple surgeon cohort of 2,831 DAA procedures, Dr Moskal noted a very low dislocation rate (0.45%) at minimum 2 years. Importantly, spinopelvic pathology or prior spinal instrumentation was not associated with an increased dislocation risk (0.30%). Dr Huo and colleagues analyzed pelvic tilt during functional gait in patients with acetabular dysplasia. They detected variable pelvic tilt on different surfaces with the data suggesting that patients with more anterior pelvic tilt while standing tend to have greater compensatory posterior pelvic tilt during gait. Dr Lamontagne reported on the sagittal and axial spinomobility in patients with hip OA, and highlighted reductions in pelvic tilt, pelvic-femoral-angle, lumbar lordosis and seated maximal trunk rotation when compared to controls. Dr Dennis showed that differences in spinopelvic mobility may explain the variable accuracy of acetabular version measurements on the cross-table lateral radiographs. Dr Gwo-Chin presented on a comprehensive functional analysis of 1,592 patients undergoing THA and observed that spinopelvic abnormalities are not infrequent (14%) in THA patients. Consistent with these findings Dr Murphy and collaborators identified a low prevalence of previous spinal instrumentation (1.5%), yet a high prevalence of spine stiffness (27.6%) in 149 patients undergoing THA. Session three highlighted various aspects of treating hip disease in young patients. Dr Peters investigated the need for subsequent hip arthroscopy in 272 patients treated with an isolated PAO. Only 4.8% of these patients required subsequent arthroscopy calling into question the routine use of combined arthroscopy and PAO. Three papers addressed questions related to THA in young patients. Dr Berend's study of 2532 hips demonstrated that high activity level was not associated with an increased risk of midterm aseptic or all cause failure. Dr Nunley presented on 43 young patients with an average age of 52 years treated with a cementless stem and modular dual mobility articulation. Stress shielding was minimal and no concerning metal ion release detected. Dr Garvin summarized minimum 15 year data of THA with highly cross-linked polyethylene in patient less than 50 years. These hips performed exceptionally well with no mechanical loosening or radiographic osteolysis. Dr Engh examined 10 year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant and reported a 92.9 % overall survivorship, with males less than 55 years achieving a 98.3% survivorship. The session was concluded by long-term data on the Conserve Plus hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Dr Amstutz presented an impressive dataset depicting an 83.1% 20 year survivorship for this early resurfacing cohort. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty was the focus of session four. Dr Meneghini reported on the anesthesia and surgical times of direct anterior and posterior approaches from a large healthcare system database. These data suggested longer OR and surgical times for the DAA both in the inpatient and ASC environments. Dr Clohisy introduced the technique and early outcomes of lateral decubitus position DAA. In a learning curve experience of 257 hips. 96% of acetabular components were in the Lewinneck safe zone, the aseptic revision rate was 0.9% and there were no dislocations. Dr Beaule analyzed femoral stem cement mantle with the DAA and posterior approaches by comparing two matched cohorts. Stem alignment and cement mantle quality were equivalent with both approaches. Similarly, Dr Emerson demonstrated technical feasibility and fewer cemented femoral stem failures when compared to cementless stems in a series of 360 DAAs THAs. The final paper of the session presented by Dr Hamilton examined the impact of surgical approach on dislocation after isolated head and liner exchange. Neither the posterior nor the anterior approach was superior in reducing the dislocation rate for these high dislocation risk procedures. The fifth session explored contemporary topics related to anesthesia and pain management. Dr Byrd opened the session with a comparative study evaluating general versus spinal anesthesia for hip arthroscopy. This preliminary study was provoked by the desire to minimize aerosolized exposure early in the COVID-19 pandemic by transitioning to spinal anesthesia. Both anesthetic methods were effective. Dr Austin presented a randomized, double-blind controlled trial comparing spinal anesthetic with mepivacaine, hyperbaric bupivacaine and isobaric bupivacaine. Mepivacaine patients ambulated earlier and were more likely to be discharged the same day. Dr Mont provided a very timely study on the effects of “cannabis use disorder” and THA outcomes. This administrative database study of 44,154 patients revealed this disorder to be associated with longer hospital stays, increased complications rates and higher costs. Dr Bedair investigated whether a highly porous acetabular component submerged in an analgesic solution could enhance perioperative pain management. Interestingly, this novel strategy was associated with a reduction of postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption in 100 experimental patients compared to 100 controls. The concluding paper of the session by Dr Della Valle examined whether decreased discharge opioids led to increased postoperative opioid refills. A large single-center study of 19,428 patients detected a slight increase (5%) in opioid refills but a reduction in total refill morphine milligram equivalents. The final, sixth session of day one considered various challenging aspects of revision hip arthroplasty. Dr Nam started the session with review of preliminary results from a randomized control trial comparing closed incision negative-pressure therapy with a silver-impregnated dressing for wound management in 113 hips undergoing revision arthroplasty. Unlike previous reports, the negative pressure therapy was associated with a higher reoperation rate for wound-related complications. Dr Bostrom highlighted the potential clinical impact of basic biological interventions by establishing the presence of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NETS) in fibrotic tissue from human aseptic loosening specimens and in a murine model of unstable tibial implantation. NET inhibition in the murine model prevented the expected tibial implant osseointegration failure. Dr Lombardi presented early 3.3 year clinical results of a highly porous Ti6al4v acetabular component in complex primary and revision arthroplasty. Survivorship for aseptic loosening was 96.6 % and 95.3% for the primary and revision cases, respectively. Dr Schwarzkopf and colleagues explored the impact of time to revision arthroplasty on clinical outcomes. Analysis of 188 revision cases revealed early revisions (less than 2 years from primary) were associated with worse outcomes, longer hospitalizations and higher reoperation rates. Mid-term results for modular dual mobility implants in revision arthroplasty were reviewed by Dr Lachiewicz who reported on 126 hips at a mean 5.5 years. 11% of hips dislocated and the 6 year survival was 91%. An outer head diameter of 48mm or greater was associated with a lower risk of dislocation. Dr Berry concluded the session by discussing the outcomes of treating the challenging problem of interprosthetic femur fractures. A single-center study of 77 cases treated over 32 years demonstrated a 79% success rate free of reoperation at 2 years with 95% of patients being ambulatory. The second day commenced with the seventh session evaluating recent strategies to improve short-term THA outcomes. Dr Bozic and colleagues investigated the association of quality measure public reporting with hip/knee replacement outcomes. Annual trend data from 2010–2011 and 2016–2017 indicate that hospital-level complication and readmission rates decease after the start of public reporting, yet it is difficult to prove a direct effect. Dr Slover reviewed his institutions experience with the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model and emphasized that lower CJR target prices make it increasingly difficult for programs to meet target price thresholds. Cost saving strategies including same day discharge and reduction of home health services may result in smaller losses of positive margins. Dr Barsoum reported on the influence of patient and procedure-related risk factors of length of stay after THA. Patient-related risk factors provided substantial predictive value yet procedure-related risk factors (hospital site and surgical approach) remain the main drivers of predicting length of stay. Dr Hozack reviewed an impressive, single surgeon cohort of 3,977 DAA THAs and analyzed adverse events and 90 day perioperative outcomes. Simultaneous bilateral DAA THA was comparable with unilateral or staged bilateral procedures in regards to complications, readmission rate and home discharge rate but with an increased risk of transfusion. To examine the risk of complications with outpatient joint arthroplasty, Dr Della Valle performed a single-surgeon matched cohort analysis comparing outpatient and inpatient hip and knee arthroplasties. Outpatient procedures were not associated with an increased risk of any postoperative complications and actually experienced fewer emergency department visits. The eighth session covered various contemporary challenges in hip arthroplasty care. Dr Griffin began the session with an analysis of the timing of complications associated with two-stage exchange procedures for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Of the 189 hips included, 41.6% had a complication and the mortality was 14.1% at 2.5 years, highlighting the morbidity of this treatment method. Dr Fehring provided data assessing the fate of two-stage reimplantation after failed debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for a prosthetic hip infection. This analysis of 114 hips yielded concerning results demonstrating a 42.9% treatment failure of patients treated with a previous DAIR compared to a 12.3% failure rate in patients treated with an initial 2-stage procedure. Dr Jacobs reviewed the analysis of 106 femoral heads with severe corrosion and identified a chemically dominated etching process termed “column damage” to be a detrimental damage mode within CoCr femoral heads that is directly linked to banding within its microstructure. These data indicate that implant alloy microstructure must be optimized to minimize the release of fretting-corrosion products. Simon Mears presented retrospective data from 184 THAs with a dual modular femoral stem. A subgroup of hips with a modular, cobalt chromium femoral neck had a pseudotumor visualized in 15% with only 55% of these having elevated CoCr levels. These findings may support the use of routine follow-up MARS MRI for modular CoCr femoral neck prostheses. The final two studies explored timely issues related to viral illness and hip surgery. Dr Browne analyzed three large administrative databases to elucidate whether patients are at increased risk for viral illnesses following total joint replacement. The incidence of postoperative influenza after total joint replacement was not increased compared to patients not undergoing total joint replacement surgery suggesting that arthroplasty procedures may not heighten the risk of viral illness. In the final paper of the session Dr Haddad presented important data regarding perioperative complications in coronavirus positive patients undergoing surgical treatment of femoral neck fractures. In this multicenter cohort study from the United Kingdom 82 coronavirus positive patients were shown to have longer hospital stays, more critical care unit admissions, higher risk of perioperative complications and an increased mortality compared to 340 coronavirus negative patients. The eighth session had two papers on alternative femoral stem designs and three presentations more focused on femoral fracture treatments. Dr Mihalko focused on the European and US experiences with the Metha femoral neck retaining stem. The US experience mirrored the encouraging results from Europe with a 94% all cause femoral survivorship and a 99.1% femoral aseptic loosening survivorship at 5 years. Dr Kraay summarized dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) evaluation of 16 low modulus composite femoral components at long-term follow-up of a mean 22 years. The bone mineral density associated with the implant increased in Gruen zones 2–6 and showed limited decreases in zones 1 and 7. These data support the concept that a low modulus femoral stem may more effectively load the proximal femur. Dr Springer provided data from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) and by evaluating outcomes of exact matched cohorts of 17,138 patients treated with cementless or cemented femoral implants for femoral neck fractures. Cemented implants were associated with marked reduction in early revision and periprosthetic fractures. However, cemented fixation was associated with an increased mortality at 90 days and 1 year. Additional data from the AJRR was presented by Dr Huddleston who investigated the risk factors for revision surgery after arthroplasty in a cohort of 75,333 femoral neck fractures. THA when compared to hemiarthroplasty was associated with higher early and overall revision rates. Cementless femoral fixation and increased age were also associated with higher rates of any revision. Both of these studies from the AJRR suggest that further consideration should be given to femoral fixation preferences in the femoral neck fracture population. Dr Vail summarized his institution's experience with an interdisciplinary hip fracture protocol for patients undergoing arthroplasty for acute femoral neck fractures. His study compared 157 cases prior to protocol implementation with 114 patients treated after the protocol was established. The impact of the interdisciplinary protocol was impressive as evidenced by a reduced time to operative treatment, length of stay, complication rate and one-year mortality. All being achieved without an increase in readmissions or facility discharges. The final session of the meeting addressed innovations in perioperative care of THA patients. Dr Barrack started the session with an interesting study examining the feasibility and patient preferences regarding telemedicine. A cross-sectional telephone survey of 163 arthroplasty patients indicated that 88% of patients use the internet and 94% own a device capable of videoconferencing. Nevertheless, only 18% of patients preferred a video visit over an in-person clinic visit due to concerns of inferior care. Dr Barnes quantified preoperative optimization work in 100 arthroplasty patients by using EMR activity logs and determined the surgical team spends an average 75 minutes per case on preoperative work activities. Dr Duwelius reported the early outcomes of primary THA with a smartphone-based exercise and educational platform compared to standard of care controls. A randomized control trial design with 365 patients demonstrated similar outcomes and non-inferiority of the smartphone platform relative to complications, readmissions, emergency room/urgent care visits. The association of controlled substance use with THA outcomes was assessed by Dr Higuera Rueda. A quantitative assessment using the NarxCare score identified 300 and above as a score associated with adverse outcomes after THA. Dr Macaulay reviewed data from a large retrospective study of 1,825 THAs indicating that discontinuation of intermittent pneumatic compression devices does not increase the risk of venous thromboembolism in standard risk patients being treated with 81mg ASA BID as prophylaxis. Dr Antoniou presented the final paper of the meeting investigating potential changes in patient health status as an indication for surgery over time. Data from this large systematic review of the literature found patients undergoing THA at similar health status to the past with no influence form patient age, gender, year of enrollment or geographic region. As summarized above, the 2020 virtual Hip Society Summer Meeting was rich in scientific content, productive discussion and a collaborative spirit. This collective body of work will result in impactful scientific contributions and will serve as a foundation for future innovation and advancements in the treatment of hip disease

Study Aim. To design an educational resource for people with lower back pain (LBP) using creative co-production. Background. Beliefs associated with a traditional biomedical view of LBP can be a barrier to recovery. Education that reframes the problem as complex and multifactorial may help patients except and engage with more positive attitudes and behaviours. Creative co-production provides a different approach to research intervention development. It encourages a collaborative problem-solving and non-hierarchical approach to knowledge mobilisation. Method. A four-phased approach to creative co-production was used based on methods developed by the Translating Knowledge into Action (TK2A) theme of NIHR CLAHRC YH. Service users and providers were brought together in a series of workshops. Initially the lived experience of LBP was explored to generate a shared understanding of the complexities of living with and managing LBP. Then activities designed to promote divergent and convergent thinking were used for idea generation. From these ideas a series of contextually sensitive prototypes were developed and tested on a small scale. Following further iterations the final prototype, ready for implementation, was presented to all key stake holders. Results. The project produced a new interactive educational resource prototype to promote positive behaviours and attitudes for people living with LBP that can be accessed early on in the health care journey. Conclusion. The creative methods applied in this project allowed patients and staff to work together, flattening hierarchies to produce pragmatic and contextually specific outputs fit for purpose in the complex clinical environment. Project funding: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Charitable Trust supported by National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH). No conflicts of interest

The World Health Organisation (WHO) Surgical Safety checklist is an evidence-based tool shown to reduce surgery-related morbidity and mortality. Despite audits showing 96% checklist compliance, our hospital had 3 surgical never events in 10 months, 2 of which were in orthopaedics. By March 2018, the authors aimed to achieve 100% compliance with all 5 sections of the WHO Five Steps to Safer Surgery bundle for all surgical patients. Additionally, the authors aimed to assess the impact of the quality of bundle delivery on preventable errors related to human factors. Quantitative assessment involved direct observations of compliance in theatres. Qualitative data in the form of rich, descriptive observations of events and discussions held during checklist delivery was analysed thematically. Interventions included trust-wide policy changes, awareness sessions, introduction of briefing and debrief proformas and documented prosthesis checks. For elective surgeries, checklist compliance increased to 100% in 4 of 5 sections of the bundle. The incidence of reported preventable critical incidents decreased from 6.7% to 2.4%. A chi-squared test of independence demonstrated a significant relationship between the implementation of changes and completion of the checklist, X2 (1, N = 1019) = 25.69, p < 0.0001. Thematic analysis identified leadership, accountability, engagement, empowerment, communication, and teamwork as factors promoting effective checklist use. Our findings highlight the benefits of a qualitative approach to auditing checklists. Exploring the role of human factors and promoting staff awareness and engagement improves checklist compliance and enhances its effectiveness in reducing surgery-related adverse outcomes

Purpose of study. To evaluate implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme in clinical practice within the National Health Service (NHS). Background. The BeST programme is a group Cognitive Behavioural Approach (CBA) for people with persistent (≥6 weeks) low back pain (LBP). This intervention has been shown to be clinically and cost-effective in a large pragmatic trial. To aid implementation of the BeST programme, an online training intervention (iBeST) was developed. Methods. iBest was promoted through marketing activities (e.g. conferences, social media, evidence briefs) prior to release and launched in March 2016 for NHS health care professionals. Impact of iBeST is being evaluated by measuring number enrolled, course completion, implementation intention, clinical delivery, perceived competence, attitudes/beliefs towards LBP, knowledge and satisfaction. Data is collected at pre and post-training, 4 months and 12 months after course completion. A service evaluation is also being conducted to measure clinical impact. Patients taking part in the BeST programme as part of routine treatment complete questionnaires at baseline, post-treatment, 3 months and 12 months after the programme to assess pain, disability, recovery, satisfaction and usefulness of BeST. Results. 881 clinicians have enrolled on iBeST and 260 have completed training (target: 250). 28 NHS sites are delivering the BeST programme. 385 and 290 participants have provided baseline and post treatment data respectively (target: 400). Data collection is ongoing. Conclusion. Implementation is challenging but iBeST has been well received by NHS clinicians and we plan to report further results of the impact and service evaluation. Conflict of interest: None. Source of funding: This research is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health