The aim of this study was to assess the impact of Covid-19 measures on the rate of surgical site infections (SSI) and subsequent readmissions in orthopaedic patients. Retrospective, observational study in a level 1 major trauma center comparing rates of SSI in orthopaedic patients who underwent surgery prior to the Covid-19 lockdown versus that of patients who underwent surgery during the lockdown period. A total of 1151 patients were identified using electronic clinical records over two different time periods; 3 months pre Covid-19 lockdown (n=680) and 3 months during the Covid-19 lockdown (n=470). Patients were followed up for 1 year following their initial procedure. Primary outcome was readmission for SSI. Secondary outcomes were treatment received and requirement for further surgeries. The most commonly performed procedures were arthroplasty and manipulation under anaesthesia with 119 in lockdown vs 101 non-lockdown (p=0.001). The readmission rate was higher in the lockdown group with 61 (13%) vs 44 (6.5%) in the non-lockdown group (p <0.001). However, the majority were due to other surgical complications such as dislocations. Interestingly, the SSI rates were very similar with 24 (5%) in lockdown vs 28 (4%) in non-lockdown (p=0.472). Twenty patients (4.2%) required a secondary procedure for their SSI in the lockdown group vs 24 (3.5%) in non-lockdown (p=0.381). Mortality rate was similar at 44 (9.3%) in lockdown vs 61 (9.0%; p=0.836). Whilst Covid-19 precautions were associated with higher readmission rates, there was no significant difference in rate of SSI between the two groups

Stiffness is reported in up to 16% of patients after total knee replacement (TKR). 1. Treatment of stiffness after TKR remains a challenge. Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) accounts for between 6%-36% of readmissions following TKR. 2,3. The outcomes of MUA remain variable/unpredictable. Post-operative CPM is used as an adjuvant to MUA, potentially offering improved ROM, however, remains the subject of debate. We report a retrospective study comparing MUA with and without post-operative CPM. In our institution patients undergoing MUA to receive CPM post-operatively. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions were limited. During this period MUA procedures were undertaken without CPM. Two cohorts were included: 1) MUA + post-operative CPM 2) Daycase MUA. Patients’ demographics, pre-manipulation ROM, post-MUA ROM, and ROM at final follow-up were recorded. Between 2017-2022 126 patients underwent MUA and were admitted for CPM and 42 had daycase MUA. The median Age was 66.5 and 64% were female. 57% had extension deficit (>5. o. ), 70% had flexion deficit (< 90. o. ), and 37% had both. The mean Pre-operative ROM was 72.3. o. (SD:18.3. o. ) vs. 68.5. o. (19.0. o. ), ROM at MUA was 95.5. o. (SD:20.7. o. ) vs 108.3. o. (SD:14.1. o. ) [p< 0.01], and at final follow-up 87.4. o. (SD:21.9. o. ) vs. 92.1. o. (SD:18.2. o. ) for daycase and CPM groups respectively. At final follow-up for the daycase and CPM groups respectively 10% vs. 7% improved, 29% vs. 13% maintained, and 57% vs. 79% regressed from the ROM achieved at MUA. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 92%(SD:17) and 85%(SD:14)[p=0.03] for daycase and CPM groups respectively. There was no significant difference in ROM achieved at final follow-up despite the significantly greater improvement in ROM achieved at MUA for the CPM group. The CPM group lost a greater ROM after MUA (15% vs. 8%). We conclude that post-operative CPM does not improve ROM achieved after MUA

Abstract. Objectives. Stiffness is reported in 4%–16% of patients after having undergone total knee replacement (TKR). Limitation to range of motion (ROM) can limit a patient's ability to undertake activities of daily living with a knee flexion of 83. o. , 93. o. , and 106. o. required to walk up stairs, sit on a chair, and tie one's shoelaces respectively. The treatment of stiffness after TKR remains a challenge. Many treatment options are described for treating the stiff TKR. In addition to physiotherapy the most employed of these is manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). MUA accounts for up to 36% of readmissions following TKR. Though frequently undertaken the outcomes of MUA remain variable and unpredictable. CPM as an adjuvant therapy to MUA remains the subject of debate. Combining the use of CPM after MUA in theory adds the potential benefits of CPM to those of MUA potentially offering greater improvements in ROM. This paper reports a retrospective study comparing patients who underwent MUA with and without post-operative CPM. Methods. Standard practice in our institution is for patients undergoing MUA for stiff TKR to receive CPM for between 12–24hours post-operatively. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions were limited. During this period several MUA procedures were undertaken without subsequent inpatient CPM. We retrospectively identified two cohorts of patients treated for stiff TKR: group 1) MUA + post-operative CPM 2) Daycase MUA. All patients had undergone initial physiotherapy to try and improve their ROM prior to proceeding to MUA. In addition to patients’ demographics pre-manipulation ROM, post-MUA ROM, and ROM at final follow-up were recorded for each patient. Results. In total 168 patients who had undergone MUA between 2017–2022 were identified with a median Age of 66.5 years and 64% female. 57% had extension deficit (>5. o. ), 70% had flexion deficit (< 90. o. ), and 37% had both. 42 had daycase MUA without CPM and the remaining 126 were admitted for post-operative CPM. The mean Pre-operative ROM was 72.3. o. (SD:18.3. o. ) and 68.5. o. (19.0. o. ) for the daycase and CPM groups respectively. The mean ROM recorded at MUA was 95.5. o. (SD:20.7. o. ) and 108.3. o. (SD:14.1. o. ) [p<0.01] and at final follow-up was 87.4o (SD:21.9o) and 92.1o (SD:18.2o) for daycase and CPM groups respectively. At final follow-up for the daycase and CPM groups respectively 10% vs. 7% improved, 29% vs. 13% maintained, and 57% vs. 79% regressed from the ROM achieved at MUA. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 92% (SD:17%) and 85% (SD:14%) [p=0.03] for daycase and CPM groups respectively. Conclusion. Overall, there was no significant difference in ROM achieved at final follow-up despite the significantly greater improvement in ROM achieved at MUA for the CPM group. Analysis of the percentage ROM gained at MUA maintained at follow up showed that most patients regressed from ROM achieved at MUA in both groups with those in the CPM only maintaining 85% as opposed to 92% in the daycase patients. It is our observation that post-operative CPM does not improve ROM achieved after MUA as compared to MUA alone. 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

Background. Patients presenting to fracture clinic who have had initial management of a fracture performed by Accident and Emergency (A+E) often require further intervention to correct unacceptable position. This usually takes the form of booking a patient for a general anaesthetic to have manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) or open surgery. Methods. Prospective data collection over a 6-month period. Included subjects were those that had initial management of a fracture performed by A+E, who went on to require re-manipulation in fracture-clinic. Manipulations were performed by trained plaster technicians using entonox analgesia followed by application of moulded cast. Radiographs were reviewed immediately post-manipulation by treating surgeon and patient managed accordingly. A retrospective review of radiograph images was performed by two doctors independently to grade the outcomes following manipulation. Results. 38 patients with 39 fractures included in study. Sites of fracture included 32 distal radius, 2 ankle, 1 spiral distal tibia and fibula, 3 metacarpal and 1 proximal phalanx of finger. 22 patients had anatomical/near-to anatomical reduction at post fracture-clinic manipulation of fracture and was the as well as definitive management (satisfactory outcome). 13 patients had a outcome 2 (minimally displaced but and satisfactory reduction of the fracture) at post fracture-clinic reduction. 12 of these were deemed acceptable went onto outcome 1 for definitive management with 1 going to outcome 2 (requiringed further manipulation). 4 patients had unsatisfactory reduction of fracture outcome 3 at post fracture-clinic reduction and all of these patients went onto outcome 3 (required surgery). Conclusions. This study supports the practice of possible primary reduction and if required, re-manipulation and cast moulding using only entonox analgesia, of selected patient cases fractures by trained plaster technicians. Without this intervention, almost all of these cases will have required an MUA or additionally Kirscher wire or open fixation. There is potential to utilise a plaster technician in A+E, reducing the need for further fracture clinic appointments, being more acceptable to patients and having a resultant cost-saving implication. Level of Evidence. Level 3

Introduction. Two randomised trials concluded cast type (above or below elbow) makes no significant difference in the re-displacement rate of paediatric forearm fractures involving the distal third of the radius. This has not, however, led to the universal use of below elbow casts. In particular we noted one trial reported significant re-displacement in 40% or more of cases, which was much higher than we would expect. To review the radiological outcomes and need for re-manipulation of paediatric distal forearm fractures treated with closed manipulation under anaesthesia in our institution, in part for subsequent comparison with published results. All forearm fractures treated at a specialist children's hospital in one year were reviewed retrospectively. Based on the methodology of one trial, we included all fractures involving the distal third of the radius, with or without an ulna fracture, which underwent closed manipulation. Outcomes were radiological alignment using existing radiographs and need for re-manipulation. Cast type was at the discretion of the treating surgeon. The radiological criteria for re-displacement were based on published methodology. 79 children underwent manipulation, 71 receiving above elbow casts and 8 below elbow casts. Radiologically 21% of injuries treated in an above elbow cast re-displaced (15/71) compared to 38% of those in below elbow plasters (3/8). In 2 cases the re-displacement was treated with re-manipulation. The preference in our institution was clearly for above elbow casts in this injury pattern. The small number of below elbow casts in our series limits any comparisons. Our rate of re-displacement using above elbow casts was half that of one of the published studies, so the existing literature is not consistent with our experience

Distal radial fractures are amongst the most common trauma referrals, however controversy remains regarding their optimum management. We undertook a retrospective review of the management of distal radial fractures in our department. The prospectively maintained trauma database was used to identify patients admitted for operative management of a dorsally displaced distal radial fracture between June 2008 and June 2009. Only extra-articular or simple intra-articular fractures were included (AO classification A2/A3/C1/C2). Operation notes were reviewed to determine the method of fixation. Patients were contacted by post and asked to complete a functional outcome score - Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). A further 12 patients with similar fractures who had been managed conservatively were also asked to complete a DASH score to provide a comparison between operative and non-operative management. 98 patients were identified - 67 female, 31 male. Mean age was 51 years, range 15-85 years. All patients were at least 1 year post-op. 26 patients had manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). 48 patients had MUA and K-wire fixation, which was supplemented with synthetic bone substitute in 16 cases. 3 patients had MUA and bone graft and 21 patients had open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a volar plate. 34 correctly completed DASH scores were returned. A lower score equates to a better functional outcome. Mean DASH scores were: MUA 14.8; MUA+K-wire 13.1; ORIF 13.6; conservative 47.1. This data would indicate that patients with a significantly displaced distal radial fracture have a better functional outcome with operative management to improve the fracture alignment. However, all of the methods of fixation used resulted in similar functional outcomes at one year