Aims. Global literature suggests that female surgical trainees have lower rates of independent operating (operative autonomy) than their male counterparts. The objective of this study was to identify any association between gender and lead/independent operating in speciality orthopaedic trainees within the UK national training programme. Methods. This was a retrospective case-control study using electronic surgical logbook data from 2009 to 2021 for 274 UK orthopaedic trainees. Total operative numbers and level of supervision were compared between male and female trainees, with correction for less than full-time training (LTFT), prior experience, and time out during training (OOP). The primary outcome was the percentage of cases undertaken as lead surgeon (supervised and unsupervised) by UK orthopaedic trainees by gender. Results. All participants gave permission for their data to be used. In total, 274 UK orthopaedic trainees submitted data (65% men (n = 177) and 33% women (n = 91)), with a total of 285,915 surgical procedures logged over 1,364 trainee-years. Males were lead surgeon (under supervision) on 3% more cases than females (61% (115,948/189,378) to 58% (50,285/86,375), respectively; p < 0.001), and independent operator (unsupervised) on 1% more cases. A similar trend of higher operative numbers in male trainees was seen for senior (ST6 to 8) trainees (+5% and +1%; p < 0.001), those with no time OOP (+6% and +8%; p < 0.001), and those with orthopaedic experience prior to orthopaedic specialty training (+7% and +3% for lead surgeon and independent operator, respectively; p < 0.001). The gender difference was less marked for those on LTFT training, those who took time OOP, and those with no prior orthopaedic experience. Conclusion. This study showed that males perform 3% more cases as the lead surgeon than females during UK orthopaedic training (p < 0.001). This may be due to differences in how cases are recorded, but must engender further research to ensure that all surgeons are treated equitably during their training. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):821–832

We have conducted a case-control study over a period of ten years comparing both deep infection with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and colonised cases with a control group. Risk factors associated with deep infection were vascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, admission to a high-dependency or an intensive-care unit and open wounds. Those for colonisation were institutional care, vascular diseases and dementia. Older age was a risk factor for any MRSA infection. The length of hospital stay was dramatically increased by deep infection. These risk factors are useful in identifying higher-risk patients who may be more susceptible to MRSA infection. A strategy of early identification and isolation may help to control its spread in trauma units

We examined the rates of infection and colonisation by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) between January 2003 and May 2004 in order to assess the impact of the introduction of an MRSA policy in October 2003, which required all admissions to be screened. Emergency admissions were treated prophylactically and elective beds ring-fenced. A total of 5594 admissions were cross-referenced with 22 810 microbiology results. The morbidity, mortality and cost of managing MRSA-carrying patients, with a proximal fracture of the femur were compared, in relation to age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade and residential status, with a group of matched controls who were MRSA-negative.

In 2004, we screened 1795 of 1796 elective admissions and MRSA was found in 23 (1.3%). We also screened 1122 of 1447 trauma admissions and 43 (3.8%) were carrying MRSA. All ten ward transfers were screened and four (40%) were carriers (all p < 0.001). The incidence of MRSA in trauma patients increased by 2.6% per week of inpatient stay (r = 0.97, p < 0.001). MRSA developed in 2.9% of trauma and 0.2% of elective patients during that admission (p < 0.001). The implementation of the MRSA policy reduced the incidence of MRSA infection by 56% in trauma patients (1.57% in 2003 (17 of 1084) to 0.69% in 2004 (10 of 1447), p = 0.035). Infection with MRSA in elective patients was reduced by 70% (0.56% in 2003 (7 of 1257) to 0.17% in 2004 (3 of 1806), p = 0.06). The cost of preventing one MRSA infection was £3200.

Although colonisation by MRSA did not affect the mortality rate, infection by MRSA more than doubled it. Patients with proximal fractures of the femur infected with MRSA remained in hospital for 50 extra days, had 19 more days of vancomycin treatment and 26 more days of vacuum-assisted closure therapy than the matched controls. These additional costs equated to £13 972 per patient.

From this experience we have been able to describe the epidemiology of MRSA, assess the impact of infection-control measures on MRSA infection rates and determine the morbidity, mortality and economic cost of MRSA carriage on trauma and elective orthopaedic wards.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.