Background. Every trainee in Trauma and Orthopaedics (T&O) in the UK and Ireland records their operative experience via the Faculty of Health Informatics eLogbook. Since August 2009, all doctors were subject to the full European Working Time Directive (EWTD) restrictions of 48 hours of work per week. We have previously shown that the implementation of shift working patterns in some units in preparation for these restrictions reduced training opportunities by 50% (elective surgical exposure). We have now analysed the national data to establish whether operative experience has fallen since August 2009. Methods. All operative data recorded nationally by trainees (all years, all supervision levels) between the 3 months of August to October 2007, 2008 and 2009 were compared. Data were available for 1091 ‘validated’ training grade surgeons (ST3-8 or equivalent) in 2007, 1103 in 2008 and 767 in 2009. Mean operative figures were calculated per trainee for each of the 3-month time periods. Results. During the three study periods trainees performed an average of 63 (2007), 62 (2008) and 65 (2009) operations, and total operative exposure was 102, 101 and 107 respectively. There was an increase in operative exposure of 5% from 2007 to 2009. Trauma represented 44% (2007), 41% (2008) and 42% (2009) of total exposure. Conclusion. This national data shows that, in the 3 months following implementation of the 48-hours EWTD restrictions, the expected decrease in operative exposure did not occur. This may be a result of the introduction of rotas to maximise theatre exposure, whilst minimising other commitments, such as outpatient experience. Alternatively, there may be widespread disregard for shift working and hours restrictions in order to maintain adequate operative exposure. Despite the implementation of the full EWTD restrictions, it appears that T&O trainee operative exposure in the first three months has not fallen

Purpose

Case logs have been utilized as a means of assessing residents surgical exposure and involvement in cases. It can be argued that the degree of involvement in operative cases is as important as absolute number of cases logged. A log which contains accurate information on actual participation in surgical cases in addition to self reported competency, is a powerful tool in obtaining a true reflection of surgical experience. Thus a prerequisite for a valuable log is the ability to perform an accurate self-assessment. Numerous studies have shown mixed results when examining residents ability to perform self-assessment on varying tasks. The purpose of the study was to examine the correlation between residents self-assessment and staff surgeons evaluation of surgical involvement and competence in performing primary hip and knee arthroplasty surgery.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore differences in operative autonomy by trainee gender during orthopaedic training in Ireland and the UK, and to explore differences in operative autonomy by trainee gender with regard to training year, case complexity, index procedures, and speciality area.

In June 2012 the Orthopaedic Speciality Advisory of the Joint Committee on Surgical Training defined ‘minimum indicative numbers’ that trainees would have to meet before completion of specialist training. It has been speculated that regions have varied in their ability to provide operative opportunities to their trainees. This study aims to test the hypothesis that there are regional differences in operative training experience. The eLogbook database was interrogated for cases over a 12 month period from 7 August 2013 to 5 August 2015. Within each region, the mean of the cases registered by orthopaedic trainees in each year of training during the study period was calculated and summed to give a representative surgical experience for the years ST3-8. First surgeon only cases were analysed for 11 index procedures in 30 T&O rotations. Considerable variation in training existed across rotations. In three index procedures, including DHS, no rotation achieved the minimum indicative number required. All rotations achieved the minimum indicative number of external fixator applications. This study proves the extent of the significant regional variation in surgical training in Trauma and Orthopaedics in the UK and raises concerns regarding the volume of operative training currently achieved

Introduction. Malpositioning of the tibial component is a common error in TKR. In theory, placement of the tibial tray could be improved by optimization of its design to more closely match anatomic features of the proximal tibia with the motion axis of the knee joint. However, the inherent variability of tibial anatomy and the size increments required for a non-custom implant system may lead to minimal benefit, despite the increased cost and size of inventory. This study was undertaken to test the hypotheses: . 1. That correct placement of the tibial component is influenced by the design of the implant. 2. The operative experience of the surgeon influences the likelihood of correct placement of contemporary designs of tibial trays. Materials and Methods. CAD models were generated of all sizes of 7 widely used designs of tibial trays, including symmetric (4) and asymmetric (3) designs. Solid models of 10 tibias were selected from a large anatomic collection and verified to ensure that they encompassed the anatomic range of shapes and sizes of Caucasian tibias. Each computer model was resected perpendicular to the canal axis with a posterior slope of 5 degrees at a depth of 5 mm distal to the medial plateau. Fifteen joint surgeons and fourteen experienced trainees individually determined the ideal size and placement of each tray on each resected tibia, corresponding to a total of 2030 implantations. For each implantation we calculated: (i) the rotational alignment of the tray; (ii) its coverage of the resected bony surface, and (iii) the extent of any overhang of the tray beyond the cortical boundary. Differences in the parameters defining the implantations of the surgeons and trainees were evaluated statistically. Results. On average, the tibial tray was placed in 5.5 ± 3.1° of external rotation. The overall incidence of internal rotation was only 4.8%: 10.5% of trainee cases vs. 0.7% of surgeon cases (p < 0.0001). The incidence of internal rotation varied significantly with implant design, ranging from 1.7% to 6.2%. Bony coverage averaged 76.0 ± 4.5%, and was less than 70% in 8.6% of cases. Tibial coverage also varied significantly between designs (73.2 ± 4.3% to 79.2 ± 3.8%; p < .0001). Clinically significant cortical overhang (>1 mm), primarily in the posterior-lateral region, was present in 12.1% of cases, and varied by design, as expressed by the area of the tray overhanging the cortical boundary (min: 2.3 ± 6.7 mm. 2. ; max: 4.7 ± 7.9 mm. 2. ; p < .0001). The surgeons and the trainees also differed in terms of the incidence of sub-optimal tibial coverage (10.0% vs. 14.4%, p < 0.001), and cortical overhang (7.4% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001). Discussion. 1. Malrotation, bony coverage and cortical overhang are all strongly influenced by the design of the tibial tray selected and the experience of the surgeon. 2. Compared to trainees, experienced surgeons tend to position tibial trays in more external rotation, and with less concern for reduced bony coverage and cortical overhang than trainees. 3. This study supports the hypothesis that improvements in the outcome and reliability of TKR may be achieved through attention to implant design

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to “frontline” specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education.

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.