Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.

Introduction: Sciatic nerve blocks have been used to reduce post-operative analgesia and allow early discharge for patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. This study aims to identify utilisation of this procedure and to ascertain if there is a consensus amongst surgeons as to best practise with regards to who performs the block and how it is performed.

Method: We surveyed current committee members of the American and members of the British orthopaedic foot and ankle surgery societies (AOFAS and BOFAS).

Results: More than half of those who responded perform over 90% foot and ankle surgery. 77% performed sciatic nerve blockade through the popliteal approach (26% used the subgluteal approach). The most common position was supine with 80% being performed by the anaesthetist. 45% never used ultrasonography to detect the position of the nerve and variable levels of nerve stimulation were used. 30% used an infusion catheter with 20% allowing discharge to home with the catheter. 42% of surgeons where happy to have the block performed under full anaesthesia. The commonest complication cited was prolonged anaesthesia, the majority of which resolved. Performing the block awake or sedated did not seem to alter the number of complications seen.

Discussion: This study represents a current practice review of sciatic nerve blocks performed in foot and ankle surgery and shows a variety of techniques used. Although this is now a widely used block, no consensus has been reached as to the use of ultrasound, level of nerve stimulation or whether the patient needs to be awake for the procedure. The use of infusion catheters (especially after discharge) has not been widely utilised, especially amongst UK surgeons.