Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic. Methods. This is a prospective study of 100 patients who were on the waiting list of a single surgeon for an elective hip or knee procedure. Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with their scheduled surgical procedure. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to define if any specific patient factors influenced decision to continue with surgery. Results. Overall, 88 patients (88%) were happy to continue with their scheduled procedure at the earliest opportunity. Patients with an ASA grade I were most likely to agree to surgery, followed by patients with ASA grades II, then those with grade III (93.3%, 88.7%, and 78.6% willingness, respectively). Patients waitlisted for an injection were least likely to consent to surgery, with just 73.7% agreeing. In all, there was a large increase in the proportion of patient willingness to continue with surgery compared to our initial study during the first wave of the pandemic. Conclusion. As COVID-19 lockdown restrictions are lifted after the second peak of the pandemic, we are seeing greater willingness to continue with scheduled orthopaedic surgery, reinforcing a change in patient perception towards having elective surgery. However, we must continue with strict COVID-19 precautions in order to minimize viral transmission as we increase our elective orthopaedic services going forward. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):865–870

Aims. The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. Methods. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed). Results. The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. Conclusion. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562–567

Aims. To evaluate safety outcomes and patient satisfaction of the re-introduction of elective orthopaedic surgery on ‘green’ (non-COVID-19) sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A strategy consisting of phased relaxation of clinical comorbidity criteria was developed. Patients from the orthopaedic waiting list were selected according to these criteria and observed recommended preoperative isolation protocols. Surgery was performed at green sites (two local private hospitals) under the COVID-19 NHS contract. The first 100 consecutive patients that met the Phase 1 criteria and underwent surgery were included. In hospital and postoperative complications with specific enquiry as to development of COVID-19 symptoms or need and outcome for COVID-19 testing at 14 days and six weeks was recorded. Patient satisfaction was surveyed at 14 days postoperatively. Results. There were 54 females and 46 males (mean age 44 years, mean body mass index (BMI) 25.6 kg/m. 2. ). In all, 56 patients underwent major orthopaedic procedures. There were no exclusions. One patient had a postoperative positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test but had no typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection and no clinical sequelae. 99% of patients were satisfied with the process and 98% would recommend undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery in the study period. Conclusion. In an environment with appropriate infrastructure, patient selection, isolation, screening, and testing, elective orthopaedic surgery is safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated with high patient satisfaction. Further follow-up is required to establish that safety is maintained as the clinical restrictions are eased with the phased approach described. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:450–456

Aims. The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway. Methods. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative test was calculated using a lower-end RT-PCR sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 95%, and the UK disease prevalence of 0.24% reported in May 2020. Subsequently, a case fatality rate of 20.5% was applied as a worst-case scenario. Results. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative preoperative test was 0.07% (around 1 in 1,400). The risk of a patient with an undetected infection being admitted for surgery and subsequently dying from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is estimated at approximately 1 in 7,000. However, if an estimate of the current global infection fatality rate (1.04%) is applied, the risk of death would be around 1 in 140,000, at most. This calculation does not take into account the risk of nosocomial infection. Conversely, it does not factor in that patients will also be clinically assessed and asked to self-isolate prior to surgery. Conclusion. Our estimation suggests that the risk of patients being inadvertently admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection for elective orthopaedic surgery is relatively low. Accordingly, the risk of death following elective orthopaedic surgery is low, even when applying the worst-case fatality rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1256–1260

Introduction. This study aimed to assess the relationship between preparation times and operative procedures for elective orthopaedic surgery. A clearer understanding of these relationships may facilitate list organisation and thereby contribute to improved operating theatre efficiency. Methods. Two years of elective orthopaedic theatre data was retrospectively analysed. The hospital medical information unit provided de- identified data for 2015 and 2016 elective orthopaedic cases, from which were selected seven categories of procedures with sufficient numbers to allow further analysis - primary hip and knee replacement, spinal surgery, shoulder surgery (excluding shoulder replacement), knee surgery, foot and ankle surgery (excluding ankle replacement), Dupuytrens surgery and general orthopaedic surgery. The data analysed included patient age, ASA grade, operation, operation time, and preparation time (calculated as the time from the start of the anaesthetic proceedings to the patient's admission to Recovery, with the operating time [skin incision to skin closure] subtracted). Statistical analysis of the data was undertaken. Results. A total of 1596 procedures performed over the two year period were analysed. Preparation times for the different procedures were assessed, along with the relationship to the procedure complexity. Neither age nor ASA correlated strongly with preparation times. Spine procedures had greater preparation times than hip and knee arthroplasty. Greater uniformity in preparation times for hip and knee arthroplasty was seen across the anaesthetic group than operative times across the surgeon group. Discussion. Preparation times are just one aspect that may be evaluated with regard to theatre utilisation. This study did not address the theatre turn-over time between cases, which includes transfer of the patient from the admitting/pre-operative area into the theatre. Conclusion. Preparation times for elective procedures follow a pattern which may be used to inform list planning, with the potential for greater theatre efficiencies with regard to list utilisation and staff allocation

Aims. The exact risk to patients undergoing surgery who develop COVID-19 is not yet fully known. This study aims to provide the current data to allow adequate consent regarding the risks of post-surgery COVID-19 infection and subsequent COVID-19-related mortality. Methods. All orthopaedic trauma cases at the Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust from ‘lockdown’ (23 March 2020) to date (15 June 2020) were collated and split into three groups. Adult ambulatory trauma surgeries (upper limb trauma, ankle fracture, tibial plateau fracture) and regional-specific referrals (periprosthetic hip fracture) were performed at a stand-alone elective site that accepted COVID-19-negative patients. Neck of femur fractures (NOFF) and all remaining non-NOFF (paediatric trauma, long bone injury) surgeries were performed at an acute site hospital (mixed green/blue site). Patients were swabbed for COVID-19 before surgery on both sites. Age, sex, nature of surgery, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, associated comorbidity, length of stay, development of post-surgical COVID-19 infection, and post-surgical COVID-19-related deaths were collected. Results. At the elective site, 225 patients underwent orthopaedic trauma surgery; two became COVID-19-positive (0.9%) in the immediate perioperative period, neither of which was fatal. At the acute site, 93 patients underwent non-NOFF trauma surgery, of whom six became COVID-19-positive (6.5%) and three died. A further 84 patients underwent NOFF surgery, seven becoming COVID-19 positive (8.3%) and five died. Conclusion. At the elective site, the rate of COVID-19 infection following orthopaedic trauma surgery was low, at 0.9%. At the acute mixed site (typical district general hospital), for non-NOFF surgery there was a 6.5% incidence of post-surgical COVID-19 infection (seven-fold higher risk) with 50% COVID-19 mortality; for NOFF surgery, there was an 8.3% incidence of post-surgical COVID-19 infection, with 71% COVID-19 mortality. This is likely to have significance when planning a resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery and for consent to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:556–561

Aims. There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods. A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results. A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion. Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53

Background. In the United Kingdom, over 1 million elective surgeries were cancelled due to COVID-19, resulting in over 1.9 million people now waiting more than 4 months for their procedure – 3x the number last year. To address this backlog, the healthcare service has been asked to develop locally-designed ‘COVID-light’ facilities. In our local system, 822 patients awaited orthopaedic surgery when elective surgery was permitted to resume. The phased return of service required a careful and pragmatic prioritisation of patients, to protect resources, patients, and healthcare workers. Aims. We aim to describe how the COVID-19 Algorithm for Resuming Elective Surgery (CARES) was used to consider 1) Which type of operation and patient should be prioritised? and 2) Which patients are safe to undergo surgery? The central tenets to this were patient safety, predicted efficacy of the surgery, and delivering compassionate care by considering biopsychosocial factors. Methods. Orthopaedic surgeons were provided with details of patients on their waiting list. They prioritised patients into those for surgery within 1 month (. Urgent. : e.g. arthroplasty for rapid deterioration from avascular necrosis or infection, or in the lowest quartile of Oxford Hip/Knee/Shoulder scores), < 3 months (. Soon. : e.g. revision or second-stage arthroplasty), and > 3 months (arthroplasty for end-stage arthrosis). The surgeon-led stratification was then reviewed by a multidisciplinary surgical prioritisation team, including anaesthetists and operating theatre managers, to consider medical history, the need for additional intraoperative services (such as cardiac physiologists, or specialist equipment requiring industry ‘reps’), and the risk of postoperative deterioration requiring HDU/ICU. The MDT also reviewed what the impact of disease and further delay may have on a patient's mental health, ability to work, or ability to care for dependents. The CARES protocol created an aggregate score for efficacy, compassion, safety and surgical risk to equitably rank patients. Results. The implementation of CARES stratified the waiting list into 122 (14.8%) patients requiring urgent surgery, with high likely health-gain or biopsychosocial gain, of whom 76 were low-risk and 46 were high-risk – medically moribund or complex. There were 232 (28.2%) patients required surgery within 3 months, and 468 (57.1%) patients were deemed safe to delay for > 3months. Alongside i) staff- and patient-screening, ii) adequate personal protective equipment, and iii) increased used of regional anaesthesia, the healthcare system was reconfigured, to create two surgical pathways. ‘Green Well’ patients were scheduled for surgery at a clean site – an elective surgical centre with no on-site HDU/ICU. ‘Green High-Risk’ patients underwent surgery at the general hospital (with on-site HDU/ICU) in operating rooms (ORs) which were physically segregated from ‘Red’ ORs reserved for COVID-19+ or trauma patients. In 6 weeks, 164 patients underwent surgery with no transmission of COVID-19 between patients or staff. Conclusion. Our healthcare system safely resumed elective surgery as early as the top 2% of hospitals nationally. This was facilitated by CARES stratification (which factors safety, efficacy, and compassion), MDT-led decisions, and surgical pathway reconfiguration. This generalisable, validated approach could be widely applied to facilitate restarts globally

Aims. The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery. Methods. Patients were randomly selected from elective orthopaedic waiting lists at three centres in the UK in April, June, August, and September 2020 and were contacted by telephone. Patients were asked whether they wanted to proceed or defer surgery. Patients who wished to defer were asked seven questions relating to potential barriers to proceeding with surgery and were asked whether there were measures/circumstances that would allow them to go forward with surgery. Results. There was a significant decline in the rate of deferral for surgery from April (n = 38/50, 76%), June (n = 68/233, 29%), to August (n = 6/50, 12%) and September (n = 5/100, 5%) (p < 0.001). Patients wishing to defer were older (68 years (SD 10.1) vs 65 (SD 11.9)), more likely to be female (65% (44/68) vs 53% (88/165)) and waiting for a knee arthroplasty (65% (44/68) vs 41% (67/165); p < 0.001). By September 2020, all patients that deferred in June at one centre had proceeded or wanted to proceed with surgery due to a perceived lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 perioperatively (68%, n = 15) or because their symptoms had progressed (32%, n = 7). The most common reason (n = 14/17, 82%) for patients deferring surgery in September was the perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 while as an inpatient. When asked what measures or circumstances would enable them to proceed with surgery, the most common (n = 7, 41%) response was reassurance of a COVID-19 free hospital. Conclusion. The rate of deferral fell to 5% by September, which was due to a lower perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 perioperatively or worsening of symptoms while waiting. The potential of a COVID-19-free hospital and communication of mortality risk may improve a patient’s willingness to go forward with surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:663–668

Background. Outcomes for patients with acute illnesses may be affected by the day of the week they present to hospital. Policy makers state this ‘weekend effect’ to be the main reason for pursuing a change in consultant weekend working patterns. However, it is uncertain whether such a phenomenon exists for elective orthopaedic surgery. This study investigated whether a ‘weekend effect’ contributed to adverse outcomes in patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacements. Methods. Retrospectively collected data was obtained from our institutions electronic patient records. Using univariate analysis, we examined potential risk factors including; Age, Sex, ASA Grade, Comorbidities, as well as the day of the week surgery was undertaken. Subsequent multivariate analyses identified covariate-adjusted risk factors, associated with prolonged hospital stays. 30-day mortality data was assessed according to the day of the week surgery was performed. Results. 892 patients underwent arthroplasty surgery from 01/09/2014 till the 31/08/2015. 457 had a total hip and 435 had a total knee replacement. 814 patients (91.3%) underwent surgery during the week, while 78 patients (8.7%) had surgery on a Saturday. There was no difference in the average Length of Stay (LOS) between groups (5.0, 2.6 versus 5.0, 3.4, p=0.95), and weekend surgery was not associated with a LOS greater than 4 days. The two variables found to be associated with a prolonged LOS were; increasing age (RR) 1.02 (95% CI: 1.01–1.03, p<0.001) and an ASA score of 2, (RR) 1.6 (95% CI: 1.15– 2.20, p=0.005). There was one death in a patient who was ASA III, and who underwent surgery on a Monday. Conclusion. There is no ‘weekend effect’ for elective orthopaedic surgery. Changes in consultant weekend working patterns are unlikely to have any effect on mortality or LOS for elective orthopaedic patients

Aims. The aim of this study was to surveil whether the standard operating procedure created for the NHS Golden Jubilee sufficiently managed COVID-19 risk to allow safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery. Methods. This was a prospective study of all elective orthopaedic patients within an elective unit running a green pathway at a COVID-19 light site. Rates of preoperative and 30-day postoperative COVID-19 symptoms or infection were examined for a period of 40 weeks. The unit resumed elective orthopaedic services on 29 June 2020 at a reduced capacity for a limited number of day-case procedures with strict patient selection criteria, increasing to full service on 29 August 2020 with no patient selection criteria. Results. A total of 2,373 cases were planned in the 40-week study period. Surgery was cancelled in 59 cases, six (10.2%) of which were due to having a positive preoperative COVID-19 screening test result. Of the remaining 2,314, 996 (43%) were male and 1,318 (57%) were female. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 59.2 to 74.6). The median American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was 2. Hip and knee arthroplasties accounted for the majority of the operations (76%). Six patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively (0.25%) and 39 patients were tested for COVID-19 within 30 days after discharge, with only five patients testing positive (0.22%). Conclusion. Through strict application of a COVID-19 green pathway, elective orthopaedic surgery could be safely delivered to a large number of patients with no selection criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):951–957

Waitemata District Health Board (WDHB) is contracted through public funding to achieve approximately 500 total hip arthroplasties per year. A pilot was established to increase productivity and reduce costs in these surgical procedures. Current barriers to efficiency in elective surgery are slow patient turnover, increase in costs of consumables and staff employment issues. This pilot introduced: A change in drivers and incentives so remuneration and rewards were related to productivity (replaced medical salaries), an alliance contracting concept (1), encouraged productivity, contained costs (consumables) increase surgeon and anaesthetist involvement in overall patient care (reduce need for additional medical staff), reduced length of hospital stay, shortened patient journey, established surgeon/anaesthetist/nurse team. Inclusion criteria:1. Hip replacements in DRG103C: Hip replacement W/O catastrophic or severe CC. 2. ASA grade <4. 3. Cases July to November 2010. Comparison of baseline data was then carried out between this pilot and compared with data from the main campus (both sites had dedicated elective operating lists). Theatre time was reduced from 167.5 to 97 minutes (42%), length of stay 5.58 days to 3.46 days (38%), OR costs $3830 to $2708 (29%). There was an increase in medical costs but a 12% saving was achieved overall. The pilot has shown that it is possible to significantly reduce costs in elective surgery through an increase in productivity. To reduce costs of elective surgery, the culture/environment needs to change to encourage the individual surgeons, anaesthetists, and other members of the team to increase productivity and decrease costs

Trauma and elective orthopaedic demands in New Zealand are increasing. In this study, prospective and retrospective data has been collected at Nelson Hospital and across New Zealand to identify the percentage of elective theatre time lost due to cancellation for acute patient care. Data has been collected from theatre management systems, hospital data systems and logged against secretarial case bookings, to calculate a percentage of elective theatre time lost to acute operating or insufficient bed capacity. Data was collected over a five-month period at Nelson Hospital, with a total of 215 elective and 226 acute orthopaedic procedures completed. A total of 95 primary hip or knee arthroplasties were completed during this trial while 53 were cancelled. The total number of elective operative sessions (one session is the equivalent of a half day operating theatre time) lost to acute workload was 47.9. Thirty-three percent of allocated elective theatre time was cancelled - an equivalent of approximately one-full day elective operating per week. Over a five-week period data was collected across all provincial hospitals in New Zealand, with an average of 18% of elective operating time per week lost due to acute workload. Elective cancellations were due to acute operating 40% of the time and bed shortages 60% of the time. The worst effected centre was Palmerston North which had an average of 33% of elective operating cancelled per week to accommodate acute surgery or due to bed shortages. New Zealand's provincial orthopaedic surgeons are under immense pressure from acute operating that impedes provision of elective surgery. The New Zealand government definition of an ‘acute case’ does not reflect the nature of today's orthopaedic burden. Increasing and aging populations along with staff and infrastructure shortages have financial and societal impacts beyond medicine and require better definitions, further research, and funding from governance

The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of BMP 7 and recombinant Human (rh) BMP 2 at stimulating bone formation and bone union in trauma and elective orthopaedic surgery. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the use of BMP 7 and rhBMP 2 at the Queen Alexandra Hospital between 2005 and 2012. The minimum follow up was three months. Inclusion criteria consisted of all patients who had failed to achieve previous surgical bone union and then received either BMP 7 or rhBMP 2 in an attempt to achieve bone union (as part of revision surgery). Patients who have not completed a minimum of three months follow up were excluded. Bone union was defined clinically and radiographically. Results. 17 patients were included (9 elective and 8 trauma patients). 9 patients received BMP2 (8 trauma and 1 elective) and 8 received rhBMP 2 (all elective). The average number of attempted fusions with autogenous bone graft prior to the use of BMP agent in the trauma and elective group was 2 and 3 respectively. The overall union rate following the use of BMP was 94.1%. 1 patient from the BMP 7 group (trauma patient) failed to unite. The union rate with BMP 7 and rhBMP 2 was 88.9% and 100% respectively. Following the use of BMP the average time to union was 117 days (BMP 7 124 days and rhBMP 2 112 days). Conclusion. Our results suggest both BMP 7 and rhBMP 2 to be an effective means of stimulating bone formation and bone union in patients with established non-union, in both trauma and elective orthopaedic surgery

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of screening and successful treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation in elective orthopaedic patients on the subsequent risk of developing a surgical site infection (SSI) with MRSA. We screened 5933 elective orthopaedic in-patients for MRSA at pre-operative assessment. Of these, 108 (1.8%) were colonised with MRSA and 90 subsequently underwent surgery. Despite effective eradication therapy, six of these (6.7%) had an SSI within one year of surgery. Among these infections, deep sepsis occurred in four cases (4.4%) and superficial infection in two (2.2%). The responsible organism in four of the six cases was MRSA. Further analysis showed that patients undergoing surgery for joint replacement of the lower limb were at significantly increased risk of an SSI if previously colonised with MRSA. We conclude that previously MRSA-colonised patients undergoing elective surgery are at an increased risk of an SSI compared with other elective patients, and that this risk is significant for those undergoing joint replacement of the lower limb. Furthermore, when an infection occurs, it is likely to be due to MRSA

We prospectively audited 79 patients undergoing primary knee or hip arthroplasty (38 knees, 41 hips) and found that 66% (58% of knees, 73% of hips) had at least one unit of blood transfused postoperatively, with a mean transfusion requirement of 1.3 units per patient (1.1 for knees, 0 to 6; 1.5 for hips, 0 to 4). We then established a new protocol for postoperative blood transfusion. This requires the calculation of the maximum allowable blood loss (MABL) that each individual patient can safely lose based upon their weight and preoperative haematocrit. The total blood loss up to this volume is replaced with colloid. When a patient’s total blood loss reaches their MABL their haematocrit is measured at the bedside using the Microspin system (Bayer plc, Newbury, UK). If their haematocrit is low (< 0.30 for men, < 0.27 for women), blood is transfused. As a safety net all patients have their haemoglobin formally checked on days 1, 2, and 3 after surgery and have a transfusion if the haemoglobin levels are less than 8.5 g/dl. We conducted a further audit of 82 patients (35 knees, 47 hips) after the introduction of this protocol. Under the new protocol only 24% of patients required blood (11% of knees, 34% of hips) with a mean transfusion requirement of 0.56 units per patient (0.26 for knees, 0 to 4; 0.79 for hips, 0 to 4). The use of clinical audit and the introduction of strict guidelines for transfusion can change transfusion practice and result in improved patient care. Our transfusion protocol is a simple and effective method of keeping transfusion to a minimum and is particularly useful in departments which do not have the facility to use autologous blood or reinfusion drains for elective orthopaedic surgery

Aims

Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care.

Surgeons want to counsel their patients accurately about the risks of rare complications. This is difficult for venous thromboembolism (VTE), as most studies report rates of asymptomatic disease. We calculated the rate of confirmed, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after elective lower limb surgery in our hospital.

We scrutinised referrals for venous Doppler ultrasound and computed tomography pulmonary angiography, identifying all cases of DVT or PE over an 18 month period. These patients were cross-referenced with our elective orthopaedic database and Healthcare Resource Group coding data.

Out of 1071 total hip replacements, there were three DVTs and two PEs, giving an incidence of 0.28% for DVT and 0.19% for PE. Out of 1351 total knee replacements, there were four DVTs and three PEs (incidence 0.29% and 0.22% respectively). Out of 1988 non-arthroplasty hip and knee procedures, there were no DVTs and two PEs (incidence 0.1%). For 1763 elective surgical foot procedures, there were five DVTs (incidence 0.28%), and no PEs.

Currently, Rivaroxaban is offered to patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery, but other patients do not receive anticoagulants routinely. Our low incidence of VTE supports this policy and is reassuring for surgeons.

Smoking is an important risk factor for the development of postoperative pulmonary complications after major surgical procedures. We studied 811 consecutive patients who had undergone hip or knee arthroplasty, recording current smoking and drinking habits, any history of chronic disease and such intraoperative factors as the type of anaesthesia and the type and duration of surgery. We recorded any postoperative complications occurring before discharge from hospital. There were 232 smokers (28.6%) and 579 non-smokers.

We found that smoking was the single most important risk factor for the development of postoperative complications, particularly those relating to wound healing, cardiopulmonary complications, and the requirement of postoperative intensive care. A delay in discharge from hospital was usual for those suffering a complication. In those patients requiring prolonged hospitalisation (> 15 days) the proportion of smokers with wound complications was twice that of non-smokers.

We compared cancellation rates with two different systems for operating booking. During 9 months of ‘Full Booking’ we gave each patient in the Outpatient Clinic an operating date. After a transition period, we then tried ‘Partial Booking’ (putting each patient on the waiting list and only giving dates after a Consultant-delivered Pre-Assessment Clinic (PAC) review at least 6 weeks before their target operating date.)

This was one Consultant's firm, with Day Cases and urgent cases excluded, and a waiting time of nine months. Cancellations were defined as an operating date given that was not honoured. Cancellations due to bed crises were excluded.

During the Full Booking phase there was a cancellation rate of 55%, with 64 cancellations out of a potential 116 operating slots. Of these: 29% condition improved, 22% date inconvenient, 19% unwell, 5% gone elsewhere/Private, 9% were moved due to Consultant leave dates, 3% Did Not Attend, and 12.5% date brought forward to fill a cancellation slot.

During the Partial Booking phase, 23% of patients attending the PAC were removed from the waiting list without ever being given operating dates. (17 of 132 did not want the operation, 7 Did Not Attend, 6 were unfit). Of the 94 patients given dates, only 8 cancelled (8%). Four subsequently decided against surgery, and four had tests that suggested surgery would not be helpful.

The improved efficiency could be due to PAC changes: Consultant presence, having six weeks to act on test results, and dates being agreed only after ‘passing’ PAC. Partial Booking had other benefits, with fewer queries, better informed consent and the optimum time to plan teaching lists, order kit and improve patients' fitness. The Government is still committed to Full Booking. Our cancellation rate improved from 55% to 8% when changing from Full Booking to Partial Booking.