The presence of metastatic bone disease (MBD) often necessitates major orthopaedic surgery. Patients will enter surgical care either through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways. Patients in a pain crisis or with an acute fracture are generally admitted via emergent care pathways whereas patients with identified high-risk bone lesions are often booked for urgent yet scheduled elective procedures. The purpose of this study is to compare the post-operative outcomes of patients who present through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways in patients in a Canadian health care system. We have conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of all patients presenting for surgery for MBD of the femur, humerus, tibia or pelvis in southern Alberta between 2006 and 2021. Patients were identified by a search query of all patients with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer who underwent surgery for an impending or actual pathologic fracture in the Calgary, South and Central Alberta Zones. Subsequent chart reviews were performed. Emergent surgeries were defined by patients admitted to hospital via urgent care mechanisms and managed via unscheduled surgical bookings (“on call list”). Elective surgeries were defined by patients seen by an orthopaedic surgeon at least once prior to surgery, and booked for a scheduled urgent, yet elective procedure. Outcomes include overall survival from the time of surgery, hospital length of stay, and 30-day hospital readmission rate. We have identified 402 patients to date for inclusion. 273 patients (67.9%) underwent surgery through emergent pathways and 129 patients (32.1%) were treated through urgent, electively scheduled pathways. Lung, prostate, renal cell, and breast cancer were the most common primary malignancies and there was no significant difference in these primaries amongst the groups (p=0.06). Not surprisingly, emergent patients were more likely to be treated for a pathologic fracture (p<0.001) whereas elective patients were more likely to be treated for an impending fracture (p<0.001). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the emergent group (5.0 months, 95%CI: 4.0-6.1) compared to the elective group (14.9 months 95%CI: 10.4-24.6) [p<0.001]. Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the emergent group (13 days, 95%CI: 12-16 versus 5 days, 95%CI: 5-7 days). There was a significantly greater rate of 30-day hospital readmission in the emergent group (13.3% versus 7.8%) [p=0.01]. Electively managed MBD has multiple benefits including longer post-operative survival, shorter length of hospital stay, and a lower rate of 30-day hospital readmission. These findings from a Canadian healthcare system demonstrate clinical value in providing elective orthopaedic care when possible for patients with MBD. Furthermore, care delivery interventions capable of decreasing the footprint of emergent surgery through enhanced screening or follow-up of patients with MBD has the potential to significantly improve clinical outcomes in this population. This is an ongoing study that will justify refinements to the current surgical care pathways for MBD in order to identify patients prior to emergent presentation. Future directions will evaluate the costs associated with each care delivery method to provide opportunity for health economic efficiencies

Introduction. The health sector contributes the equivalent of 4.4% of global net emissions to the climate carbon footprint. It has been suggested that between 20% and 70% of health care waste originates from a hospital's operating room, the second greatest component of this are the textiles used, and up to 90% of waste is sent for costly and unneeded hazardous waste processing. Waste from common orthopaedic operations was quantified, the carbon footprint calculated, and cost of disposal assessed. A discussion of the circular economy of textiles, from the author of the textile guidance to the Green Surgery Report follows. Methods. The amount of waste generated from a variety of trauma and elective orthopaedic operations was calculated across a range of hospital sites. The waste was separated primarily into clean and contaminated, paper or plastic. The carbon footprint and the cost of disposal across the hospital sites was subsequently calculated. Results. Elective procedures can generate up to 16.5kg of plastic waste per procedure. Practices such as double draping the patient contribute to increasing the quantity of waste. The cost to process waste vary widely between hospital sites, waste disposal contractors and the method of waste disposal. Conclusion. This study sheds new light on the environmental impact of waste produced in trauma and elective orthopaedic procedures. Mitigating the environmental impact of the operating room requires a collective drive for a culture change to sustainability and social responsibility. Each clinician can impact upon the carbon footprint of their operating theatre. Consideration should be given to the type of textiles used within the operating theatre

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

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 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

Introduction. Superficial pin site infection is a common problem associated with external fixation, which has been extensively reported. However, the incidence and risk factors with regards to deep infection is rarely reported in the literature. In this study, we investigate and explore the incidence and risk factors of deep infection following circular frame surgery. For the purpose of this study, deep infection was defined as: persistent discharge or collection for which surgical intervention was recommended. Materials and Methods. Retrospective review of all patients whom underwent frame surgery between 1. st. of April 2015 to 1. st. April 2019 in our unit with a minimum of 1 year follow up following frame removal. We recorded patient demographics, patient risk factors, trauma or elective procedure, number of days the frame was in situ, location of infection and fracture pattern. Results. 304 patients were identified. 27 patients were excluded as they were lost to follow up or had their primary frame surgery as a treatment for infection. This provided us with 277 patients for analysis. Mean age was 47 years (range 9–89 years), the male to female ratio was 1.5:1 and 80% were trauma frames. 13 patients (4.69%) developed deep infection and all occurred in trauma patients. Of the 13 patients who developed deep infection, 4 had infection before frame removal and 9 occurred after frame removal. 8 deep infections occurred within a year of frame removal, 1 occurred between 1 and 2 years. Within the 13 frame procedures for trauma, 12 were periarticular multifragmentary fractures, 3 of which were open, and the remaining was an open diaphyseal fracture. The periarticular fractures were more likely to develop deep infection than diaphyseal fractures (p–0.033). 12 patients (out of 13) also had concurrent minimally invasive internal fixation with screws in very close proximity of the wires. Conclusions. The rate of deep infection following circular frame surgery appears to be low. Pooled, multicentre data would be required to analyse risk factors however multifragmentary, periarticular fracture and the requirement for additional internal fixation appears to be an associated factor

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

Introduction. Clinical decision support tools are software that match the input characteristics of an individual patient to an established knowledge base to create patient-specific assessments that support and better inform individualized healthcare decisions. Clinical decision support tools can facilitate better evidence-based care and offer the potential for improved treatment quality and selection, shared decision making, while also standardizing patient expectations. Methods. Predict+ is a novel, clinical decision support tool that leverages clinical data from the Exactech Equinoxe shoulder clinical outcomes database, which is composed of >11,000 shoulder arthroplasty patients using one specific implant type from more than 30 different clinical sites using standardized forms. Predict+ utilizes multiple coordinated and locked supervised machine learning algorithms to make patient-specific predictions of 7 outcome measures at multiple postoperative timepoints (from 3 months to 7 years after surgery) using as few as 19 preoperative inputs. Predict+ algorithms predictive accuracy for the 7 clinical outcome measures for each of aTSA and rTSA were quantified using the mean absolute error and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). Results. Predict+ was released in November 2020 and is currently in limited launch in the US and select international markets. Predict+ utilizes an interactive graphical user interface to facilitate efficient entry of the preoperative inputs to generate personalized predictions of 7 clinical outcome measures achieved with aTSA and rTSA. Predict+ outputs a simple, patient-friendly graphical overview of preoperative status and a personalized 2-year outcome summary of aTSA and rTSA predictions for all 7 outcome measures to aid in the preoperative patient consultation process. Additionally, Predict+ outputs a detailed line-graph view of a patient's preoperative status and their personalized aTSA, rTSA, and aTSA vs. rTSA predicted outcomes for the 7 outcome measures at 6 postoperative timepoints. For each line-graph, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) patient-satisfaction improvement thresholds are displayed to aid the surgeon in assessing improvement potential for aTSA and rTSA and also relative to an average age and gender matched patient. The initial clinical experience of Predict+ has been positive. Input of the preoperative patient data is efficient and generally completed in <5 minutes. However, continued workflow improvements are necessary to limit the occurrence of responder fatigue. The graphical user interface is intuitive and facilitated a rapid assessment of expected patient outcomes. We have not found the use of this tool to be disruptive of our clinic's workflow. Ultimately, this tool has positively shifted the preoperative consultation towards discussion of clinical outcomes data, and that has been helpful to guide a patient's understanding of what can be realistically achieved with shoulder arthroplasty. Discussion and Conclusions. Predict+ aims to improve a surgeon's ability to preoperatively counsel patients electing to undergo shoulder arthroplasty. We are hopeful this innovative tool will help align surgeon and patient expectations and ultimately improve patient satisfaction with this elective procedure. Future research is required, but our initial experience demonstrates the positive potential of this predictive tool

The significance of ring-fencing orthopaedic beds and protected elective sites have recently been highlighted by the British Orthopaedic Association & Royal College of Surgeons. During the pandemic many such elective setups were established with various degrees of success. This study aimed to compare the functioning and efficiency of a Orthopaedic Protected Elective Surgical Unit (PESU) instituted during the pandemic with the pre-pandemic elective service at our hospital (Pre-Pandemic ward or PPW). We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent elective Orthopaedic procedures in a protected elective unit during the pandemic (March 2020 – July 2020) and a similar cohort of patients operated via the routine elective service immediately prior to the pandemic (October 2019 – February 2020). Various parameters were compared and analysed. To minimise the effect of confounding factors a secondary analysis was undertaken comparing total hip replacements (THR) by a single surgeon via PESU (PESU-THR) and PPW (PPW-THR) over 5 months each from March-July 2021 and March-July 2019 respectively. A total of 192 cases were listed on PESU during the studied period whereas this number was 339 for PPW. However more than half (52%) of those listed for a surgery on PPW were cancelled and only 162 cases (48%) were actually performed. PESU had a significantly better conversion rate with only 12.5% being cancelled and 168 (87.5%) cases performed. 49% (87 out of 177) of the cases cancelled on PPW were due to a ‘bed unavailability’. A further 17% (30/177) and 16% (28/177) were cancelled due to ‘emergency case prioritisation’ and ‘patient deemed unfit’ respectively. In contrast only 3 out of the 24 patients cancelled on PESU were due to bed unavailability and the main reason for cancellation here was ‘patient deemed unfit’ (9/24). Single surgeon THR, showed similar demographic features for the 25 patients on PESU and 37 patients on PPW. The average age for these patients was 63 on PESU and 69 on PPW whereas the BMI was 33 and 30 respectively. The patients on PESU also demonstrated a decrease in length of hospital stay with an average of 3 days in comparison to 4.8 days for those admitted to PPW. PROMS scores were comparable at 6 weeks with an average improvement of 16.4/48 in the PESU-THR cohort and of 18.8/48 in the PPW-THR cohort. There were no readmissions or revisions recorded in the PESU-THR cohort while the PPW-THR cohort had 1 readmission and revision. Our study shows how a small ring fenced Orthopaedic elective unit in a district general hospital, even during a global pandemic, can function more efficiently than a routine elective facility with many shared services

Abstract. Background. During COVID-19 pandemic, there has been worldwide cancellation of elective surgeries to protect patients from nosocomial transmission and peri-operative complications. With unfolding situation, there is definite need for exit strategy to reinstate elective services. Therefore, more literature evidence supporting exit plan to elective surgical services is imperative to adopt a safe working principle. This study aims to provide evidence for safe elective surgical practice during pandemic. Methods. This single centre, prospective, observational study included adult patients who were admitted and underwent elective surgical procedures in the trust's COVID-Free environment at Birmingham Treatment Centre between 19th May and 14th July’2020. Data collected on demographic parameters, peri-operative variables, surgical specialities, COVID-19 RT-PCR testing results, post-operative complications and mortality. The study also highlighted the protocols it followed for the elective services during pandemic. Results. 303 patients were included with mean age of 49.9 years (SD 16.5) comprising of 59% (178) female and 41% (125) male. They were classified according to American Society of Anaesthesiologist Grade, different surgical specialities and types of anaesthesia used. 96% patients were discharged on the same day. 100% compliance to pre-operative COVID-19 testing was maintained. There was no 30-day mortality or major respiratory complications. Conclusion. Careful patient selection, simultaneous involvement of the pre-assessment and anaesthetic team, strict adherence to peri-operative protocols and delivering vigilant post-operative care for COVID-19 infection can help providing safe elective surgical services if the community transmission under reasonable control. However, it is particularly important to maintain COVID-free safe environment for such procedures

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

The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardised assessment tools designed to record adverse events (AEs) in orthopaedic patients. The primary objective was to compare AEs recorded prospectively by orthopaedic surgeons compared to trained independent clinical reviewers. The secondary objective was to compare AEs following spine, hip, knee, and shoulder orthopaedic procedures. Over a 10-week period, three orthopaedic spine surgeons recorded AEs following all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Three orthopaedic surgeons (hip, knee, and shoulder) also recorded AEs for their elective procedures. Two independent reviewers used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs after reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses, physiotherapists). At discharge, AEs recorded by the surgeons and independent reviewers were recorded in a database. AE data for 164 patients were collected (48 spine, 52 hip, 33 knee, and 31 shoulder). Overall, 98 AEs were captured by the independent reviewers, compared to 14 captured by the surgeons. Independent reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons overall, as well as for each individual group (i.e. spine, hip, knee, shoulder) (p2), but surgeons failed to record minor events that were captured by the independent reviewers (e.g. urinary retention and cutaneous injuries; AEs Grade 0.05). AEs were reported in 21 (43.8%), 19 (36.5%), 12 (36.4%), and five (16.1%) spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients, respectively. Nearly all reported AEs required only simple or minor treatment (e.g. antibiotic, foley catheter) and had no effect on outcome. Two patients experienced AEs that required invasive or complex treatment (e.g. surgery, monitored bed) that had a temporary effect on outcome. Similar complication rates were reported in spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients. Independent reviewers reported more AEs compared to surgeons. These findings suggest that independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following orthopaedic surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs, enhance patient safety and care, and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models

Spine surgery is common and costly. Researchers and policy makers believe that utilization of spine surgery in the US is significantly higher than in other industrialized countries. Although within-country variation in spine surgery utilization is well studied, there has been little exploration of variation in spine surgery between countries. We used population level administrative data from Ontario (years 2011–2015) and New York (2011–2014) to identify all adults who underwent inpatient spinal decompression or fusion surgery. We compared Ontario and New York with respect to patient demographics and the percentage of hospitals performing spine surgery. We compared rates of decompression and fusion surgery (procedures per-10,000 population per-year) in Ontario and New York for all procedures, emergent procedures alone, and elective procedures and after stratifying by patient age. Patients in Ontario were older than patients in New York for decompression (mean age 58.8 vs. 51.3 years, P<.001) and fusion (58.1 vs. 54.9, P<.001). A smaller percentage of hospitals in Ontario performed decompression or fusion compared to New York (decompression, 26.1% in Ontario vs 54.9% in New York: fusion 15.2% vs 56.7%, both P<.001). Overall, utilization of spine surgery in Ontario was 6.6 procedures per-10,000 population per-year and in New York was 18 per-10,000 per-year (P<.001). Ontario-New York differences in utilization were small for emergent cases (2 per-10,000 in Ontario vs. 2.8 in New York, P<.001), but large for elective cases (4.6 vs 15.2, P<.001). In analyses stratified by surgical subtype, differences in utilization of decompression in New York and Ontario were relatively modest (2.4 vs 3.1, P<.001), while utilization of fusion was approximately 400% higher in New York than Ontario (15.7 vs 3.5, P<.001). Further analysis demonstrated that the New York-Ontario difference in utilization was substantially larger among younger patients and smaller for older patients. For example, utilization of spine procedures in New York was 340% greater than Ontario for patients less-than 50 years of age (11.7 vs 3.4), but only 25% greater in patients age 80 and above (10 vs 12.6). After adjusting for patient demographics, hospital LOS and surgical urgency, differences in mortality in Ontario and New York were not significant for either decompression or fusion. In adjusted analyses differences in hospital LOS were slightly greater for decompression in Ontario, but similar for fusion and readmission rates in Ontario were significantly lower than in New York. In conclusion, we found significantly lower utilization of spine surgery in Ontario when compared to New York. The difference in utilization was attributable to less elective fusion surgery, primarily in younger (i.e. non-Medicare) patients. These findings can serve inform broader spine surgery policy reforms in both jurisdictions

Aims. We aim to objectively assess the impact of COVID-19 on mean total operative cases for all indicative procedures (as outlined by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST)) experienced by orthopaedic trainees in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Subjective experiences were reported for each trainee using questionnaires. Methods. During the first four weeks of the nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19, the objective impact of the pandemic on each trainee’s surgical caseload exposure was assessed using data from individual trainee logbook profiles in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Independent predictor variables included the trainee grade (ST 3 to 8), the individual trainee, the unit that the logbook was reported from, and the year in which the logbook was recorded. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to assess for any statistically significant predictor variables. The subjective experience of each trainee was captured using an electronic questionnaire. Results. The mean number of total procedures per trainee over four weeks was 36.8 (7 to 99; standard deviation (SD) 19.67) in 2018, 40.6 (6 to 81; SD 17.90) in 2019, and 18.3 (3 to 65; SD 11.70) during the pandemic of 2020 (p = 0.043). Significant reductions were noted for all elective indicative procedures, including arthroplasty (p = 0.019), osteotomy (p = 0.045), nerve decompression (p = 0.024) and arthroscopy (p = 0.024). In contrast, none of the nine indicative procedures for trauma were reduced. There was a significant inter-unit difference in the mean number of total cases (p = 0.029) and indicative cases (p = 0.0005) per trainee. We noted that 7.69% (n = 3) of trainees contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean number of operative cases per trainee has been significantly reduced for four of the 13 indicative procedures, as outlined by the JCST. Reassignment of trainees to high-volume institutions in the future may be a plausible approach to mitigate significant training deficits in those trainees worst impacted by the reduction in operative exposure

Simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasties (THAs) present unique and unwarranted dangers to the patient and surgeon alike. These include a significantly increased risk of blood transfusion (up to 50% in contemporary series even with the use of tranexamic acid), longer operative times, longer length of stays, and higher mortality rates in patients with minimal risk factors (age > 75 years, rheumatoid arthritis, higher ASA class, and/or male sex). This is even in light of the fact that the vast majority of literature has a substantial selection bias in which only the healthiest, youngest, non-obese, and most motivated patients are included. Traditionally, simultaneous bilateral THAs were completed in the lateral decubitus position. This required the surgeon and surgical team to reposition the patient onto a fresh wound, as well as additional prepping and draping. To mitigate these additional limitations of simultaneous bilateral THAs, there has been a recent trend towards utilizing the direct anterior approach. However, this particular approach presents its own unique set of complications such as an increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture and early femoral failure, an increased risk of impaired wound healing (particularly in obese patients), potential injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve with subsequent neurogenic pain, and traction-related neurologic injuries. When compounded with the risks of simultaneous bilateral THAs, the complication profile becomes prohibitive for an elective procedure with an otherwise very low morbidity

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted all segments of daily life, with the healthcare sector being at the forefront of this upheaval. Unprecedented efforts have been taken worldwide to curb this ongoing global catastrophe that has already resulted in many fatalities. One of the areas that has received little attention amid this turmoil is the disruption to trainee education, particularly in specialties that involve acquisition of procedural skills. Hand surgery in Singapore is a standalone combined programme that relies heavily on dedicated cross-hospital rotations, an extensive didactic curriculum and supervised hands-on training of increasing complexity. All aspects of this training programme have been affected because of the cancellation of elective surgical procedures, suspension of cross-hospital rotations, redeployment of residents, and an unsustainable duty roster. There is a real concern that trainees will not be able to meet their training requirements and suffer serious issues like burnout and depression. The long-term impact of suspending training indefinitely is a severe disruption of essential medical services. This article examines the impact of a global pandemic on trainee education in a demanding surgical speciality. We have outlined strategies to maintain trainee competencies based on the following considerations: 1) the safety and wellbeing of trainees is paramount; 2) resource utilization must be thoroughly rationalized; 3) technology and innovative learning methods must supplant traditional teaching methods; and 4) the changes implemented must be sustainable. We hope that these lessons will be valuable to other training programs struggling to deliver quality education to their trainees, even as we work together to battle this global catastrophe

Aims. Due to widespread cancellations in elective orthopaedic procedures, the number of patients on waiting list for surgery is rising. We aim to determine and quantify if disparities exist between inpatient and day-case orthopaedic waiting list numbers; we also aim to determine if there is a ‘hidden burden’ that already exists due to reductions in elective secondary care referrals. Methods. Retrospective data were collected between 1 April 2020 and 31 December 2020 and compared with the same nine-month period the previous year. Data collected included surgeries performed (day-case vs inpatient), number of patients currently on the orthopaedic waiting list (day-case vs inpatient), and number of new patient referrals from primary care and therapy services. Results. There was a 52.8% reduction in our elective surgical workload in 2020. The majority of surgeries performed in 2020 were day case surgeries (739; 86.6%) with 47.2% of these performed in the independent sector on a ‘lift and shift’ service. The total number of patients on our waiting lists has risen by 30.1% in just 12 months. As we have been restricted in performing inpatient surgery, the inpatient waiting lists have risen by 73.2%, compared to a 1.6% rise in our day-case waiting list. New patient referral from primary care and therapy services have reduced from 3,357 in 2019 to 1,722 in 2020 (49.7% reduction). Conclusion. This study further exposes the increasing number of patients on orthopaedic waiting lists. We observed disparities between inpatient and day-case waiting lists, with dramatic increases in the number of inpatients on the waiting lists. The number of new patient referrals has decreased, and we predict an influx of referrals as the pandemic eases, further adding to the pressure on inpatient waiting lists. Robust planning and allocation of adequate resources is essential to deal with this backlog. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):530–534

Background. There is increasing interest in the use of Total Hip Replacement (THR) for reconstruction in patients who have suffered displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Patient selection is important for good outcomes but criteria have only recently been clearly defined in the form of national guidelines. This study aims to investigate patient reported outcomes and satisfaction after Total Hip Replacement (THR) undertaken for displaced hip fractures and to compare these with a matched cohort of patients undergoing contemporaneous THR for osteoarthritis in order to assess the safety and effectiveness of national clinical guidelines. Methods. 100 patients were selected for treatment of displaced hip fractures using THR between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009. These patients were selected using national guidelines and were matched for age and gender with 300 patients who underwent contemporaneous THR as an elective procedure for osteoarthritis. Results. Patients undergoing THR for both fracture and as an elective procedure reported excellent outcomes and satisfaction. Hip fracture patients had better post-operative Oxford hip scores (p< 0.001) and SF-12 physical component scores (p< 0.001). Mental component scores were poorer for hip fracture patients (p< 0.001). In this series, the rates of major complications for hip fracture patients were higher than for elective patients. Nevertheless, the rates of dislocation, deep infection and early revision surgery were similar to those widely reported in the literature and considered within acceptable limits after elective surgery. Conclusions. For selected patients, THR undertaken for displaced fractures of the hip produces outcomes which are at least equivalent to those achieved after elective surgery. Selection is critical to this success and the extended use of current guidelines is appropriate and safe

Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital is situated in the South Western part of Johannesburg and is one of the largest acute hospitals in the world, serving a population of more than 3.5 million people. The hospital has a total of 2964 beds of which 232 beds are orthopaedic, including paediatric orthopaedics. The orthopaedic division at this tertiary level hospital comprises six units, namely; Upper Limb Trauma, Lower Limb Trauma, Spine Unit, Paediatric Orthopaedics, Sports and General Orthopaedics, and Arthroplasty/Tumour & Sepsis Unit. This review seeks to elicit the total number of patients seen with orthopaedic conditions and the spectrum thereof in and around Soweto. This is the first review of its kind done at The Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, Orthopaedic division, to date. Purpose:. The purpose of this audit is to identify the orthopaedic related health events that occur within the Soweto population being serviced by the Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, and in doing so be used as a tool to improve orthopaedic related patient care and outcomes in public health services. Method:. A retrospective review was conducted for a period of one year. This included all orthopaedic admissions, theatre cases performed, and outpatient assessments. Statistics were taken from registers incorporating OPD, Wards, Casualty and theatre. Results of the study:. For the period of the review there were more than 3000 orthopaedic admissions from the emergency unit. Theatre records show that approximately 4000 orthopaedic theatre cases were performed at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital. This consisted of more than 75 different types of operative procedures. The majority were hand procedures and the bulk of elective procedures were for total hip replacements. There were more than 28000 patients reviewed at the outpatients department for the year being reviewed. Conclusion:. This analysis outlines the spectrum of orthopaedics seen at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, ranging from admissions to theatre cases performed. The result of which can be used to improve the quality of patient care, reduce elective procedure waiting lists, as well as be used as a tool for future research

An important aspect of the governance of surgical services within a Healthcare Trust is the correct coding of elective procedures performed. Within the Trust, treatment codes are banded into specific healthcare resource groups (HRGs), which generate a predetermined income. Accurate coding and grouping of the treatments provided for patients is consequently vital to Trusts to ensure that they receive appropriate financial reward for the care provided, so ensuring they remain economically viable as a department. We present a retrospective study investigating the accuracy of procedure coding, code allocation to HRGs, and the resultant cost consequences for all elective arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repairs completed by one consultant over one financial year (01/01/2010-31/03/2011). In this period a total of 55 ACL repairs were undertaken by the consultant. Data was available for 43 of these cases, all of which were repairs of traumatic ACL ruptures. The patients had an average age of 26.7 (17–55) years, all were ASA 1 and had no significant comorbidities. They were all booked for identical procedures, except one patient who required an allograft; 12 required meniscectomies. All 43 had an operation note completed by the operating consultant. Within this trust patient and procedural codes were generated from electronic discharge letters (EDLs). We found that all 43 EDLs were completed accurately, contained full details of the procedures undertaken, and included relevant information such as complications, patient comorbidities, length of stay and the prescription of analgesics. These 43 EDLs generated 15 different diagnostic codes and 10 different procedure codes, with a total of 35 different combinations of codes. These were then grouped into six different HRGs. These six HRGs generated income for the Trust, varying from £1880 to £3554 (mean £2670) for the procedures, with a total income of £114,823. We found that patient and procedure details, and the level of doctor completing the EDL did not significantly influence the HRG generated (P = 0.4). Currently within the Trust, and nationally the HRG tariff for a routine ACL repair has not been agreed upon. The maximum possible tariff from an HRG for this procedure for a patient with no significant comorbidities is described as – ‘Reconstruction of intraarticular ligament – Major knee procedure for trauma’, generating an income of £5183 per case. Application of this tariff would have resulted in a total income of £222,869 for the 43 patients included in the present study a potential increase of earnings for the Trust of £108,046, for one elective procedure in one financial year. The findings of this study reveal the potential for limitations in the governance of surgical services through inaccuracies in HRG coding, despite the availability of suitably detailed EDLs. It is suggested that Trusts should audit and, where indicated, ensure effective quality assurance of HRG coding in the interests of the governance of secondary care services