Aims. Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites. Methods. A multidisciplinary surgical prioritization committee developed the SPAG, incorporating procedural urgency, shared decision-making, patient safety, and biopsychosocial factors; and applied it to 1,142 adult patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery. Patients were stratified into four priority groups and underwent surgery at three COVID-free sites, including one with access to a high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU) and specialist resources. Safety was assessed by the number of patients requiring inpatient postoperative HDU/ICU admission, contracting COVID-19 within 14 days postoperatively, and mortality within 30 days postoperatively. Results. A total of 1,142 patients were included, 47 declined surgery, and 110 were deemed high-risk or requiring specialist resources. In the ten-week study period, 28 high-risk patients underwent surgery, during which 68% (13/19) of Priority 2 (P. 2. , surgery within one month) patients underwent surgery, and 15% (3/20) of P. 3. (< three months) and 16% (11/71) of P. 4. (> three months) groups. Of the 1,032 low-risk patients, 322 patients underwent surgery. Overall, 21 P. 3. and P. 4. patients were expedited to ‘Urgent’ based on biopsychosocial factors identified by the SPAG. During the study period, 91% (19/21) of the Urgent group, 52% (49/95) of P. 2. , 36% (70/196) of P. 3. , and 26% (184/720) of P. 4. underwent surgery. No patients died or were admitted to HDU/ICU, or contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. Our widely generalizable model enabled the restart of planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, without compromising patient safety or excluding high-risk or complex cases. Patients classified as Urgent or P. 2. were most likely to undergo surgery, including those deemed high-risk. This model, which includes assessment of biopsychosocial factors alongside disease severity, can assist in equitably prioritizing the substantial list of patients now awaiting planned orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):134–140

Introduction. Despite improvement in implants and surgical techniques up to 20% of Total Knee Arthroplasty TKA patients continue to report dissatisfaction. The ATTUNE Knee System was designed to provide better patellar tracking and stability through the mid-range of flexion and therefore improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Aims. The aims of this study were to assess patient outcomes in a consecutive series of ATTUNE TKA and ensure early results were comparable to other TKA systems in Australia. Methods. Between September 2014 and December 2015, 332 ATTUNE TKR's were implanted locally. All patients in our learning curve from case 1 were included. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years (range: 2.0–3.2). Revision, complications and postoperative ROM was collected. Patient reported outcome was measured using the Multi-Attribute Arthritis Prioritization Tool (MAPT) questionnaire. Revision rates were cross checked with an AOANJRR Ad Hoc report. Results. Revision rate of the ATTUNE TKR was lower than national rates, however not statistically different (1.6% vs. 2.1%) (p=0.508). Postoperative MAPT scores were significantly lower after TKR (median 63.4 vs. 0.0) (p<0.001). A total of 86.7% patients had a good outcome postoperative TKR (MAPT≤ 20). Conclusion. Our findings suggest the ATTUNE TKR has comparable revision rates to other TKRs currently available in Australia. Furthermore, patient reported outcome was high 2.8 years postoperatively, with 85% patient satisfaction