Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence of hip fracture has not changed. Evidence has shown increased mortality rates associated with COVID-19 infection. However, little is known about the outcomes of COVID-19 negative patients in a pandemic environment. In addition, the impact of vitamin D levels on mortality in COVID-19 hip fracture patients has yet to be determined. This multicentre observational study included 1,633 patients who sustained a hip fracture across nine hospital trusts in North West England. Data were collected for three months from March 2020 and for the same period in 2019. Patients were matched by Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), hospital, and fracture type. We looked at the mortality outcomes of COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients sustaining a hip fracture. We also looked to see if vitamin D levels had an impact on mortality.Aims
Methods
Calcium sulphate (CaSO4) is a resorbable material
that can be used simultaneously as filler of a dead space and as
a carrier for the local application of antibiotics. Our aim was
to describe the systemic exposure and the wound fluid concentrations
of vancomycin in patients treated with vancomycin-loaded CaSO4 as
an adjunct to the routine therapy of bone and joint infections. A total of 680 post-operative blood and 233 wound fluid samples
were available for analysis from 94 implantations performed in 87
patients for various infective indications. Up to 6 g of vancomycin
were used. Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed
on the data from 37 patients treated for an infection of the hip.Aims
Patients and Methods
A recent Supreme Court ruling in the United Kingdom
has significantly altered the emphasis of informed consent, moving
from a historically ‘doctor-focused’ to a more ‘patient-focused’ approach,
in line with the situation in other international jurisdictions. The reasons for the change are discussed with some recommendations
about how our attitudes need to change in the future. Cite this article:
In order to assess the efficacy of inspection and accreditation by the Specialist Advisory Committee for higher surgical training in orthopaedic surgery and trauma, seven training regions with 109 hospitals and 433 Specialist Registrars were studied over a period of two years. There were initial deficiencies in a mean of 14.8% of required standards (10.3% to 19.2%). This improved following completion of the inspection, with a mean residual deficiency in 8.9% (6.5% to 12.7%.) Overall, 84% of standards were checked, 68% of the units improved and training was withdrawn in 4%. Most units (97%) were deficient on initial assessment. Moderately good rectification was achieved but the process of follow-up and collection of data require improvement. There is an imbalance between the setting of standards and their implementation. Any major revision of the process of accreditation by the new Post-graduate Medical Education and Training Board should recognise the importance of assessment of training by direct inspection on site, of the relationship between service and training, and the advantage of defining mandatory and developmental standards.
As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection. If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.
Using a computer-based quality assurance program, we analysed peri-operative data on 160 patients undergoing one-stage bilateral hip or knee arthroplasties under regional anaesthesia with routine anaesthetic monitoring and only using peripheral intravenous access for peri-operative safety. We monitored defined intra-operative adverse events such as hypotension, myocardial ischaemia, arrhythmias, hypovolaemia, hypertension and early post-operative complications. We also determined post-operative hip and knee function, and patient satisfaction with different aspects of the anaesthetic management. Those patients undergoing one-stage bilateral arthroplasties were matched according to a cross-stratification which used three variables (American Society of Anesthesiologists’ physical status scoring system, age and joint replaced) to patients undergoing unilateral hip or knee arthroplasties. Serious intra-operative adverse events were, with the exception of intra-operative hypotension, very infrequent in patients undergoing bilateral (nine adverse events) as well as unilateral arthroplasties (five adverse events). Early post-operative complications were also infrequent in both groups. However, the risks of receiving a heterologous blood transfusion (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 5.0, estimated by exact conditional logistic regression) or vasoactive drugs (odds ratio 3.9; 95% CI 2.0 to 7.8) were significantly greater for patients undergoing bilateral operations. Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia was high; all patients who underwent the one-stage bilateral operation would choose the same anaesthetic technique again.
