Aims. The adequate provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers has come under considerable scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate staff awareness of PPE guidance, perceptions of PPE measures, and concerns regarding PPE use while caring for COVID-19 patients. In addition, responses of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals (OHCPs) were compared. Methods. The inclusion criteria were all staff working in clinical areas of the hospital. Staff were invited to take part using a link to an online questionnaire advertised by email, posters displayed in clinical areas, and social media. Questions grouped into the three key themes - staff awareness, perceptions, and concerns - were answered using a five-point Likert scale. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare results across all three groups of staff. Results. Overall, 315 staff took part in our study. There was a high awareness of PPE guidance at 84.4%, but only 52.4% of staff reported adequate PPE provision. 67.9% were still keen to come to work, despite very high levels of anxiety relating to contracting COVID-19 despite wearing PPE. Doctors had significantly higher ratings for questions relating to PPE awareness compared to other staff groups, while nursing staff and OHCPs had significantly higher levels of anxiety compared to doctors in relation to PPE and contracting COVID-19 (p < 0.05 using a Kruskal-Wallis test). Conclusion. We believe four recommendations are key to improve PPE measures and decrease anxiety: 1) nominated ward/department PPE champions; 2) anonymized reporting for PPE concerns; 3) formal PPE education sessions; and 4) drop-in counselling sessions for staff. We hope the insight and recommendations from this study can improve the PPE situation and maintain the health and wellbeing of the clinical work force, in order to care for COVID-19 patients safely and effectively

The subject of noise in the operating theatre was recognized as early as 1972 and has been compared to noise levels on a busy highway. While noise-induced hearing loss in orthopaedic surgery specifically has been recognized as early as the 1990s, it remains poorly studied. As a result, there has been renewed focus in this occupational hazard. Noise level is typically measured in decibels (dB), whereas noise adjusted for human perception uses A-weighted sound levels and is expressed in dBA. Mean operating theatre noise levels range between 51 and 75 dBA, with peak levels between 80 and 119 dBA. The greatest sources of noise emanate from powered surgical instruments, which can exceed levels as high as 140 dBA. Newer technology, such as robotic-assisted systems, contribute a potential new source of noise. This article is a narrative review of the deleterious effects of prolonged noise exposure, including noise-induced hearing loss in the operating theatre team and the patient, intraoperative miscommunication, and increased cognitive load and stress, all of which impact the surgical team’s overall performance. Interventions to mitigate the effects of noise exposure include the use of quieter surgical equipment, the implementation of sound-absorbing personal protective equipment, or changes in communication protocols. Future research endeavours should use advanced research methods and embrace technological innovations to proactively mitigate the effects of operating theatre noise. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1039–1043

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an unprecedented burden on global healthcare systems, and existing infrastructures must adapt and evolve to meet the challenge. With health systems reliant on the health of their workforce, the importance of protection against disease transmission in healthcare workers (HCWs) is clear. This study collated responses from several countries, provided by clinicians familiar with practice in each location, to identify areas of best practice and policy so as to build consensus of those measures that might reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 to HCWs at work. Methods. A cross-sectional descriptive survey was designed with ten open and closed questions and sent to a representative sample. The sample was selected on a convenience basis of 27 senior surgeons, members of an international surgical society, who were all frontline workers in the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist. Results. Responses were received by all 27 surgeons from 22 countries across six continents. A number of the study respondents reported COVID-19-related infection and mortality in HCWs in their countries. Differing areas of practice and policy were identified and organized into themes including the specification of units receiving COVID-19 patients, availability and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), other measures to reduce staff exposure, and communicating with and supporting HCWs. Areas more specific to surgery also identified some variation in practice and policy in relation to visitors to the hospital, the outpatient department, and in the operating room for both non-urgent and emergency care. Conclusion. COVID-19 presents a disproportionate risk to HCWs, potentially resulting in a diminished health system capacity, and consequently an impairment to population health. Implementation of these recommendations at an international level could provide a framework to reduce this burden

Aim

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff.

During the pandemic of COVID-19, some patients with COVID-19 may need emergency surgeries. As spine surgeons, it is our responsibility to ensure appropriate treatment to the patients with COVID-19 and spinal diseases. A protocol for spinal surgery and related management on patients with COVID-19 has been reviewed. Patient preparation for emergency surgeries, indications, and contraindications of emergency surgeries, operating room preparation, infection control precautions and personal protective equipments (PPE), anesthesia management, intraoperative procedures, postoperative management, medical waste disposal, and surveillance of healthcare workers were reviewed. It should be safe for surgeons with PPE of protection level 2 to perform spinal surgeries on patients with COVID-19. Standardized and careful surgical procedures should be necessary to reduce the exposure to COVID-19

Aims. The use of fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgery creates risk of radiation exposure to surgeons. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can help mitigate this. The primary aim of this study was to assess if current radiation protection in orthopaedic trauma is safe. The secondary aims were to describe normative data of radiation exposure during common orthopaedic procedures, evaluate ways to improve any deficits in protection, and validate the use of electronic personal dosimeters (EPDs) in assessing radiation dose in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Radiation exposure to surgeons during common orthopaedic trauma operations was prospectively assessed using EPDs and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Normative data for each operation type were calculated and compared to recommended guidelines. Results. Current PPE appears to mitigate more than 90% of ionizing radiation in orthopaedic fluoroscopic procedures. There is a higher exposure to the inner thigh during seated procedures. EPDs provided results for individual procedures. Conclusion. PPE currently used by surgeons in orthopaedic trauma theatre adequately reduces radiation exposure to below recommended levels. Normative data per trauma case show specific anatomical areas of higher exposure, which may benefit from enhanced radiation protection. EPDs can be used to assess real-time radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery. There may be a role in future medical wearables for orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):907–912

Aims. Orthopaedic surgery uses many varied instruments with high-speed, high-impact, thermal energy and sometimes heavy instruments, all of which potentially result in aerosolization of contaminated blood, tissue, and bone, raising concerns for clinicians’ health. This study quantifies the aerosol exposure by measuring the number and size distribution of the particles reaching the lead surgeon during key orthopaedic operations. Methods. The aerosol yield from 17 orthopaedic open surgeries (on the knee, hip, and shoulder) was recorded at the position of the lead surgeon using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS; 0.5 to 20 μm diameter particles) sampling at 1 s time resolution. Through timestamping, detected aerosol was attributed to specific procedures. Results. Diathermy (electrocautery) and oscillating bone saw use had a high aerosol yield (> 100 particles detected per s) consistent with high exposure to aerosol in the respirable range (< 5 µm) for the lead surgeon. Pulsed lavage, reaming, osteotome use, and jig application/removal were medium aerosol yield (10 to 100 particles s. -1. ). However, pulsed lavage aerosol was largely attributed to the saline jet, osteotome use was always brief, and jig application/removal had a large variability in the associated aerosol yield. Suctioning (with/without saline irrigation) had a low aerosol yield (< 10 particles s. -1. ). Most surprisingly, other high-speed procedures, such as drilling and screwing, had low aerosol yields. Conclusion. This work suggests that additional precautions should be recommended for diathermy and bone sawing, such as enhanced personal protective equipment or the use of suction devices to reduce exposure. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(10):636–643

Aims. The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations. Methods. This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline. Results. Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission. Conclusion. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309–315

Aims. COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. Methods. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19. Results. A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019. Conclusion. Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520–529

Abstract. Background. Healthcare workers have had to make rapid and drastic adjustments to their practice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This work describes the effect on their physical, mental, financial and family well-being and assesses the support provided by their institutions. Methods. An online survey was distributed through medical organisations, social media platforms and collaborators to staff based in an operating theatre environment. Results. 1590 responses were received from 54 countries. Average age of participants was between 30 and 40 years old, 64.9% were male, 79.5% were surgeons, 6.2% nurses, 5.4% assistants, 4.2%. Of the total 32.0% had become physically ill since the start of the pandemic. Physical illness was more likely in those with reduced access to personal protective equipment (OR 4.62; CI 2.82–7.56; p<0.001) and regular breaks (OR 1.56; CI 1.18–2.06; p=0.002). Those with a decrease in salary (29% of participants) were more likely to have an increase in anxiety (OR 1.50; CI 1.19–1.89; p=0.001) and depression scores (OR 1.84; CI 1.40–2.43; p<0.001) and those who spent less time with family (35.2%) were more likely to have an increase in depression score (OR 1.74; CI 1.34–2.26; p<0.001). In terms of support, only 36.0% had easy access to occupational health services, 44.0% to mental health services, 16.5% to 24 hour rest facilities and 14.2% to 24 hour food and drink facilities. Conclusion. This work has highlighted a need and ways in which to improve conditions for the health workforce, which will inevitably have a positive impact on the care received by patients

Introduction. With resumption of non-urgent surgery in May 2020, standard anesthesia for hip arthroscopy switched from general with endotracheal intubation (GA) to spinal (SA) in response to COVID-19 implications; reducing potential aerosolized exposure for patient and staff and reducing consumption of personal protective equipment (PPE). There are no studies that compare the attributes for these two anesthesia methods for hip arthroscopy; and thus, this was viewed as an opportunity to perform a comparative observational study on SA to a recent matched group of GA. Methods. Beginning in May 2020, SA became the standard for hip arthroscopy. GA was used if the patient refused SA or had a history of previous lumbar spinal surgery, or body mass index (BMI) greater than 35. SA patients were carefully matched for age, gender and procedure to a recent previous GA population and compared for recovery room (RR) length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scores (VAS), morphine mg equivalent (MME) usage, and untoward events. Additionally, SA and GA cases performed since May 2020 were compared for the length of time from entry to the operating room (OR) until the surgeon was able to perform an examination under anesthesia (EUA). Results. Statistical analysis determined that these groups are too small (46 in each group) to establish significant differences, but the authors felt that an opportunity to explore this, based on a recent change out of necessity (COVID-!9), was worth presenting as a novel study to compare two accepted methods of anesthesia for hip arthroscopy. SA patients required fewer regional blocks (7 vs 1) and needed less narcotics (99 vs 153). As a potential advantage of SA, continued investigation to see if this reaches statistical significance is meaningful. SA patients did spend more time in the PACU (136 vs 133); and had more problems with urinary retention, requiring catheterization (5 vs 0); but most of these occurred early in the experience and was corrected by having the patient void immediately prior to transfer to the OR and avoiding anticholinergic medications. SA seemed to add only slightly to the length of time until the surgeon could perform an EUA and begin positioning for the procedure (9 vs 8). Conclusion. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. Of particular interest with further studies will be whether choice of anesthesia affects early postoperative rehabilitation

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

Objectives: To review the changing pattern of orthopaedic injury encountered by deployed troops with regard to the importance of hand trauma. Methods: A literature review of orthopaedic practice in recent conflict. The search period extended from 1990–2007. A subsequent search was performed to identify papers relating to hand injuries from 1914 to the present day. Papers were graded according to Levels of Evidence. Results: 210 published works were analysed. Review of the literature revealed a lack of statistical analysis and a tendency towards the anecdotal. The evidence is overall level 5 with the majority of papers comprising reviews, individual sub-unit experiences, historical perspectives and individual database analyses. The evolving importance of extremity trauma is clear from the quantity of its reporting. The paucity of life threatening cavity trauma is highlighted. Casualty survival off the battlefield is increasing perhaps due to the impact of personal protective equipment. The combination of changing ballistics and increasing survivability leads to an apparent increase in limb threatening and complex hand trauma being encountered by military surgeons. Despite being rarely reported in isolation, the proportion of complex hand trauma is broadening with an increase in open fractures and mutilated soft tissue injuries resultant from high and low energy transfer ballistics. Hand trauma is also shown to occur in deployed troops during activities unrelated to war fighting. Sporting activities and inappropriate use of equipment are responsible for soft tissue and bony injury with considerable morbidity. The literature was analysed with regard to the classification of hand trauma. Articles relating to recent conflicts were notable for their lack of classification of these injuries. The bulk of papers retrieved concerning military hand trauma management were published prior to the conflicts of the last decade. It is within these papers that classification and treatment priorities including the nature of debridement and fracture stabilisation are discussed and highlighted as core knowledge. Conclusion: The nature of injuries sustained by troops in conflict is evolving. Changing survivability is resulting in increasingly complex hand trauma presenting to military surgeons. Despite a culture of ensuring that today’s trauma surgeons learn from mistakes made by their predecessors, in the field of hand trauma this is not the case. A comprehensive review of changing orthopaedic conflict related injury patterns with special regard to hand trauma and the key learning points from historical literature are highlighted. Proposals for improving management are discussed with regard to improved training opportunities and dialogue between military trauma surgeons

The February 2024 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: If you use a surgical helmet, you should seal your gown-glove interface; The use of iodophor-impregnated drapes in patients with iodine-related allergies: a case series and review of the literature; Location of the ovaries in children and efficacy of gonadal shielding in hip and pelvis radiography; Prehospital tranexamic acid administration does not improve outcomes in severe trauma patients; Silver-coated distal femur megaprosthesis in chronic infections with severe bone loss: a multicentre case series.

Aims

Body exhaust suits or surgical helmet systems (colloquially, ‘space suits’) are frequently used in many forms of arthroplasty, with the aim of providing personal protection to surgeons and, perhaps, reducing periprosthetic joint infections, although this has not consistently been borne out in systematic reviews and registry studies. To date, no large-scale study has investigated whether this is applicable to shoulder arthroplasty. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry to assess whether the use of surgical helmet systems was associated with lower all-cause revision or revision for deep infection in primary shoulder arthroplasties.

The December 2024 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Predicting recurrence of instability after a primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation; Predictors of surgery and long-term outcomes in nonoperative management of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty viable despite acquired acromial compromise, but higher infection risk noted; LP-PRP reduces retear rates in rotator cuff repair but shows no functional outcome advantage; Long-term clinical outcomes of arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair using the single anchor tension band technique – minimum five-year follow-up; Arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder dislocation shows low recurrence rates regardless of prior dislocations; ORIF outperforms arthroplasty for complex radial head fractures: mid-term outcomes; Routine use of surgical helmet systems may not reduce infection risk in shoulder arthroplasty.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events.

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.

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to healthcare systems across the globe in 2020. There were concerns surrounding early reports of increased mortality among patients undergoing emergency or non-urgent surgery. We report the morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures during the UK first stage of the pandemic.