Acetabular fractures present a challenge. Anatomical reduction can be achieved by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). However, in elderly patients with complex fracture patterns and osteoporotic bone stock, “fix and replace” has become an option in the management of these injuries. This involves ORIF of the acetabulum to enable insertion of a press fit cup and subsequent cemented femoral stem at the index surgery.

A Retrospective analysis of all operatively managed acetabular fractures by a regional Pelvic and Acetabular Trauma service (01/01/2018-30/05/2023) STATA used for analysis. 34 patients undergoing “fix and replace” surgery. Of the 133 patients managed with ORIF, 21 subsequently required Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Mean follow up was 2.7 years versus 5.1. There was no statistical significance between the two groups with regards to BMI or sex. Mean age in the “fix and replace” group was 68 compared to 48 in the ORIF and subsequent THA group. This reached statistical significance between the two groups (p=0.001).ASA and Charlson Comorbidity Index (3 and 3 in “fix and replace” and 2 and 1.2 in ORIF to THA group) and Charlson Comorbidity Index both were statistically significantly different (p=0.006 and p=0.027, respectively). High energy mechanism of injury accounted for 56% of the “fix and replace” group compared to 48% in the ORIF to THA. 74% of “fix and replace” were associated fractures compared to 53% of ORIF to THA. Wait to surgery was 3 days for “fix and replace” while 186 days was the mean wait time from listing to THA for the ORIF to THA group. Complication rate was 41% versus 43% in the two groups. 14% in the ORIF to THA group developed PJI versus 6% in “fix and replace”.

Fix and replace allows early mobilisation in frailer, elderly patients. Our results show fewer returns to theatre and less PJI in patients having arthroplasty as part of “fix and replace” than subsequent to Open reduction internal fixation.

Global surgical literature suggests that female trainees have less operative autonomy than their male counterparts. This pilot study had the primary objective to identify difference in autonomy by gender, and to power a national study to carry out further quantitative and qualitative research on this.

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study utilising eLogbook data for all orthopaedic trainees (ST2-8) and consultants with CCT date 2016–2021 in a single Scottish deanery. The primary outcome measure was percentage of procedures undertaken as lead surgeon. 15 trainees and four recent consultants participated, of which 12 (63%) were male (mean grade 5.2), and 7 (37%) were female (mean grade 4.3). Trainees were lead surgeon on 64% of procedures (17595/27558), with autonomy rising with grade (37% ST1 to 85% ST8, OR 9.4). Operative autonomy was higher in male vs female trainees (66.5% and 61.4% respectively, p=<0.0001), with female trainees more likely to operate with a supervisor present (STU/S vs P/T, f 48%:13%, m 45%:20%).

This pilot study found that there was a significant difference in operative autonomy between male and female trainees, however this may be explained by differences in mean grade of male vs female trainees. Five trainees took time OOT, 4/5 of whom were female. Extension to a national multi-centre study should repeat the quantitative method of this study with additional qualitative analysis including assessing effect of time OOT to explore the reason for any gender discrepancies seen across different deaneries in the UK.

Training time in Trauma & Orthopaedics is pressured. In this action research project, we develop a feedback/self-reflection model for trainers and trainees, emphasising the contribution both groups make to training, to maximise cohesion and efficacy.

Starting in 2013, trainees completed anonymous feedback forms after each 6-month post. The 18-point quantitative questionnaire covers four training domains: WBA engagement, teaching/feedback, research/audit, operative training.

Consultant trainers completed a once-off corresponding 18-point self-reflection questionnaire. Additionally, trainers were asked for their expectations of and advice for trainees.

Individual trainer profiles were generated from trainee feedback questionnaires, allowing comparison between trainer-group-average, trainer-specific and trainer-self-reflection scores across 18 fields. Trainer profiles were uploaded to ISCP and used for recognition of trainer status for SOAR. This data provided basis for local service provision review with amendments to maximise training efficacy.

Results of thematic analysis of trainer feedback was shared with the trainee group. This and subsequent group self-reflection formed the basis of our ‘Trainee Charter’.

Trainee feedback illustrates high levels of satisfaction with local training (average global score 4.2/5). Strengths included ‘feedback’ and ‘operative teaching’; relative weaknesses included ‘research time’ and ‘OPD teaching’.

The ‘Trainee Charter’ details specific desirable behaviours that embody eight trainee-qualities consistently identified by trainers as important, including ‘honesty’ and ‘being organised’. The charter emphasises trainee contribution to training.

For the first time, trainers have the benefit of serial and individualised feedback. Trainees are better informed and empowered in relation to maximising their own training. Most importantly, both halves of the training-team are explicitly acknowledged.

Pain produced by the tourniquet is a common source of complaint for patients undergoing carpal tunnel decompression. Practice varies as to tourniquet position. There is little evidence to suggest benefit of one position over another. Our aim was to compare the experience of both the patient and the surgeon with the tourniquet placed either on the arm or the forearm.

Ethical approval was granted. Following power calculation and a significance level set at 0.05, 100 patients undergoing open carpal tunnel decompression under local anaesthetic were randomised to arm or forearm group. Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) (0–100) for pain, blood pressure and heart rate were taken at 2 minute intervals. The operating surgeon provided a VAS for bloodless field achieved and obstruction caused by the tourniquet.

The demographics of the groups was similar. There were no statistically significant differences in any measure between the groups.

Average tourniquet times were 8.8 minutes (forearm) and 8.2 minutes (arm). The average VAS score for forearm and arm was 13 and 11 respectively for bloodless field, 9 and 2 for obstruction. Average overall VAS for pain was 27 in each group, however interval VAS scores for pain were higher in the arm group. The average change Mean Arterial Pressure was −5 mmHg (forearm) −2 mmHg (arm) pulse rate was −1 bpm (forearm) and −2 bpm (arm).

Tourniquet placement on the arm does not result in significant difference in patient pain, physiological response or length of operation. Surgeons reported less obstruction and better bloodless fields with an arm tourniquet, however there was a trend for forearm tourniquet to result in less pain for the patient.