Aims. In the UK, the agricultural, military, and construction sectors have stringent rules about the use of hearing protection due to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Orthopaedic staff may also be at risk due to the use of power tools. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what are deemed acceptable occupational levels of noise on A-weighted and C-weighted scales. The aims of this review were to assess the current evidence on the testing of exposure to noise in orthopaedic operating theatres to see if it exceeds these regulations. Methods. A search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. Studies which assessed the exposure to noise for orthopaedic staff in operating theatres were included. Data about the exposure to noise were extracted from these studies and compared with the A-weighted and C-weighted acceptable levels described in the HSE regulations. Results. A total of 15 studies were deemed eligible. These included a total of 386 orthopaedic operations and the use of 64 orthopaedic instruments. A total of 294 operations (76%) and 45 instruments (70%) exceeded the regulations on an A-weighted scale, and 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C-weighted peak acceptable level of noise. Noise-induced hearing loss was reported in 28 of 55 orthopaedic staff members (50.9%). Conclusion. Safe levels of noise can be exceeded in orthopaedic operations, and when using orthopaedic instruments. Employers have clear policies about exposure to noise in the workplace but have yet to identify orthopaedic theatres as a potential at-risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring, and protection, while employers should consider regular assessments of staff in orthopaedic theatres and offer methods to prevent noise-induced hearing loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):602–609

Aims. Most patients with advanced malignancy suffer bone metastases, which pose a significant challenge to orthopaedic services and burden to the health economy. This study aimed to assess adherence to the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS)/British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) guidelines on patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) in the UK. Methods. A prospective, multicentre, national collaborative audit was designed and delivered by a trainee-led collaborative group. Data were collected over three months (1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021) for all patients presenting with MBD. A data collection tool allowed investigators at each hospital to compare practice against guidelines. Data were collated and analyzed centrally to quantify compliance from 84 hospitals in the UK for a total of 1,137 patients who were eligible for inclusion. Results. A total of 846 patients with pelvic and appendicular MBD were analyzed, after excluding those with only spinal metastatic disease. A designated MBD lead was not present in 39% of centres (33/84). Adequate radiographs were not performed in 19% of patients (160/846), and 29% (247/846) did not have an up-to-date CT of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis to stage their disease. Compliance was low obtaining an oncological opinion (69%; 584/846) and prognosis estimations (38%; 223/846). Surgery was performed in 38% of patients (319/846), with the rates of up-to-date radiological investigations and oncology input with prognosis below the expected standard. Of the 25% (215/846) presenting with a solitary metastasis, a tertiary opinion from a MBD centre and biopsy was sought in 60% (130/215). Conclusion. Current practice in the UK does not comply with national guidelines, especially regarding investigations prior to surgery and for patients with solitary metastases. This study highlights the need for investment and improvement in care. The recent publication of British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) defines auditable standards to drive these improvements for this vulnerable patient group. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1115–1122

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

Aims. Children with spinal dysraphism can develop various musculoskeletal deformities, necessitating a range of orthopaedic interventions, causing significant morbidity, and making considerable demands on resources. This systematic review aimed to identify what outcome measures have been reported in the literature for children with spinal dysraphism who undergo orthopaedic interventions involving the lower limbs. Methods. A PROSPERO-registered systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. All relevant studies published until January 2023 were identified. Individual outcomes and outcome measurement tools were extracted verbatim. The measurement tools were assessed for reliability and validity, and all outcomes were grouped according to the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT) filters. Results. From 91 eligible studies, 27 individual outcomes were identified, including those related to clinical assessment (n = 12), mobility (n = 4), adverse events (n = 6), investigations (n = 4), and miscellaneous (n = 1). Ten outcome measurement tools were identified, of which Hoffer’s Functional Ambulation Scale was the most commonly used. Several studies used unvalidated measurement tools originally developed for other conditions, and 26 studies developed new measurement tools. On the OMERACT filter, most outcomes reported pathophysiology and/or the impact on life. There were only six patient- or parent-reported outcomes, and none assessed the quality of life. Conclusion. The outcomes that were reported were heterogenous, lack validation and failed to incorporate patient or family perceptions. Until outcomes can be reported unequivocally, research in this area will remain limited. Our findings should guide the development of a core outcome set, which will allow consistency in the reporting of outcomes for this condition. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):277–285

Economic evaluation provides a framework for assessing the costs and consequences of alternative programmes or interventions. One common vehicle for economic evaluations in the healthcare context is the decision-analytic model, which synthesizes information on parameter inputs (for example, probabilities or costs of clinical events or health states) from multiple sources and requires application of mathematical techniques, usually within a software program. A plethora of decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions have been published in recent years. This annotation outlines a number of issues that can help readers, reviewers, and decision-makers interpret evidence from decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):17–20

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429

Musculoskeletal diseases are having a growing impact worldwide. It is therefore crucial to have an evidence base to most effectively and efficiently implement future health services across different healthcare systems. International trials are an opportunity to address these challenges and have many potential benefits. They are, however, complex to set up and deliver, which may impact on the efficient and timely delivery of a project. There are a number of models of how international trials are currently being delivered across a range of orthopaedic patient populations, which are discussed here. The examples given highlight that the key to overcoming these challenges is the development of trusted and equal partnerships with collaborators in each country. International trials have the potential to address a global burden of disease, and in turn optimize the benefit to patients in the collaborating countries and those with similar health services and care systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):719–722

In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424

The recently published Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens In Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial found no benefit in extending antibiotic prophylaxis from 24 hours to five days after endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower limb bone tumours. PARITY is the first randomized controlled trial in orthopaedic oncology and is a huge step forward in understanding antibiotic prophylaxis. However, significant gaps remain, including questions around antibiotic choice, particularly in the UK, where cephalosporins are avoided due to concerns of Clostridioides difficile infection. We present a review of the evidence for antibiotic choice, dosing, and timing, and a brief description of PARITY, its implication for practice, and the remaining gaps in our understanding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):850–856

Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):843–849

Aims. Sarcopenia is characterized by a generalized progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical performance. This systematic review primarily evaluated the effects of sarcopenia on postoperative functional recovery and mortality in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, and secondarily assessed the methods used to diagnose and define sarcopenia in the orthopaedic literature. Methods. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies involving sarcopenic patients who underwent defined orthopaedic surgery and recorded postoperative outcomes were included. The quality of the criteria by which a diagnosis of sarcopenia was made was evaluated. The quality of the publication was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results. A total of 365 studies were identified and screened, 26 full-texts were reviewed, and 19 studies were included in the review. A total of 3,009 patients were included, of whom 2,146 (71%) were female and 863 (29%) were male. The mean age of the patients was 75.1 years (SD 7.1). Five studies included patients who underwent spinal surgery, 13 included hip or knee surgery, and one involved patients who underwent fixation of a distal radial fixation. The mean follow-up was 1.9 years (SD 1.9; 5 days to 5.6 years). There was wide heterogeneity in the measurement tools which were used and the parameters for the diagnosis of sarcopenia in the studies. Sarcopenia was associated with at least one deleterious effect on surgical outcomes in all 19 studies. The postoperative rate of mortality was reported in 11 studies (57.9%) and sarcopenia was associated with poorer survival in 73% (8/11) of these. The outcome was most commonly assessed using the Barthel Index (4/19), and sarcopenic patients recorded lower scores in 75% (3/4) of these. Sarcopenia was defined using the gold-standard three parameters (muscle strength, muscle quantity or quality, and muscle function) in four studies (21%), using two parameters in another four (21%) and one in the remaining 11 (58%). The methodological quality of the studies was moderate to high. Conclusion. There is much heterogeneity in the reporting of the parameters which are used for the diagnosis of sarcopenia, and evaluating the outcome of orthopaedic surgery in sarcopenic patients. However, what data exist suggest that sarcopenia impairs recovery and increases postoperative mortality, especially in patients undergoing emergency surgery. Further research is required to develop processes that allow the accurate diagnosis of sarcopenia in orthopaedics, which may facilitate targeted pre- and postoperative interventions that would improve outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):321–330

There is a disparity in sport-related injuries between sexes, with females sustaining non-contact musculoskeletal injuries at a higher rate. Anterior cruciate ligament ruptures are between two and eight times more common than in males, and females also have a higher incidence of ankle sprains, patellofemoral pain, and bone stress injuries. The sequelae of such injuries can be devastating to an athlete, resulting in time out of sport, surgery, and the early onset of osteoarthritis. It is important to identify the causes of this disparity and introduce prevention programmes to reduce the incidence of these injuries. A natural difference reflects the effect of reproductive hormones in females, which have receptors in certain musculoskeletal tissues. Relaxin increases ligamentous laxity. Oestrogen decreases the synthesis of collagen and progesterone does the opposite. Insufficient diet and intensive training can lead to menstrual irregularities, which are common in female athletes and result in injury, whereas oral contraception may have a protective effect against certain injuries. It is important for coaches, physiotherapists, nutritionists, doctors, and athletes to be aware of these issues and to implement preventive measures. This annotation explores the relationship between the menstrual cycle and orthopaedic sports injuries in pre-menopausal females, and proposes recommendations to mitigate the risk of sustaining these injuries. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):723–728

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758

Aims. Malignancy and surgery are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We undertook a systematic review of the literature concerning the prophylactic management of VTE in orthopaedic oncology patients. Methods. MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched focusing on VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding, or wound complication rates. Results. In all, 17 studies published from 1998 to 2018 met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The mean incidence of all VTE events in orthopaedic oncology patients was 10.7% (1.1% to 27.7%). The rate of PE was 2.4% (0.1% to 10.6%) while the rate of lethal PE was 0.6% (0.0% to 4.3%). The overall rate of DVT was 8.8% (1.1% to 22.3%) and the rate of symptomatic DVT was 2.9% (0.0% to 6.2%). From the studies that screened all patients prior to hospital discharge, the rate of asymptomatic DVT was 10.9% (2.0% to 20.2%). The most common risk factors identified for VTE were endoprosthetic replacements, hip and pelvic resections, presence of metastases, surgical procedures taking longer than three hours, and patients having chemotherapy. Mean incidence of VTE with and without chemical prophylaxis was 7.9% (1.1% to 21.8%) and 8.7% (2.0% to 23.4%; p = 0.11), respectively. No difference in the incidence of bleeding or wound complications between prophylaxis groups was reported. Conclusion. Current evidence is limited to guide clinicians. It is our consensus opinion, based upon logic and deduction, that all patients be considered for both mechanical and chemical VTE prophylaxis, particularly in high-risk patients (pelvic or hip resections, prosthetic reconstruction, malignant diagnosis, presence of metastases, or surgical procedures longer than three hours). Additionally, the surgeon must determine, in each patient, if the risk of haemorrhage outweighs the risk of VTE. No individual pharmacological agent has been identified as being superior in the prevention of VTE events. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12)1743:–1751

Aims. Gender bias and sexual discrimination (GBSD) have been widely recognized across a range of fields and are now part of the wider social consciousness. Such conduct can occur in the medical workplace, with detrimental effects on recipients. The aim of this review was to identify the prevalence and impact of GBSD in orthopaedic surgery, and to investigate interventions countering such behaviours. Methods. A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMCARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library Database in April 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to which we adhered. Original research papers pertaining to the prevalence and impact of GBSD, or mitigating strategies, within orthopaedics were included for review. Results. Of 570 papers, 27 were eligible for inclusion. These were published between 1998 and 2020. A narrative review was performed in light of the significant heterogeneity displayed by the eligible studies. A total of 13 papers discussed the prevalence of GBSD, while 13 related to the impact of these behaviours, and six discussed mitigating strategies. GBSD was found to be common in the orthopaedic workplace, with all sources showing women to be the subjects. The impact of this includes poor workforce representation, lower salaries, and less career success, including in academia, for women in orthopaedics. Mitigating strategies in the literature are focused on providing female role models, mentors, and educational interventions. Conclusion. GBSD is common in orthopaedic surgery, with a substantial impact on sufferers. A small number of mitigating strategies have been tested but these are limited in their scope. As such, the orthopaedic community is obliged to participate in more thoughtful and proactive strategies that mitigate against GBSD, by improving female recruitment and retention within the specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1446–1456

Aims. Computer-based applications are increasingly being used by orthopaedic surgeons in their clinical practice. With the integration of technology in surgery, augmented reality (AR) may become an important tool for surgeons in the future. By superimposing a digital image on a user’s view of the physical world, this technology shows great promise in orthopaedics. The aim of this review is to investigate the current and potential uses of AR in orthopaedics. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to January 2019 using the keywords ‘orthopaedic’ OR ‘orthopedic AND augmented reality’ was performed by two independent reviewers. Results. A total of 41 publications were included after screening. Applications were divided by subspecialty: spine (n = 15), trauma (n = 16), arthroplasty (n = 3), oncology (n = 3), and sports (n = 4). Out of these, 12 were clinical in nature. AR-based technologies have a wide variety of applications, including direct visualization of radiological images by overlaying them on the patient and intraoperative guidance using preoperative plans projected onto real anatomy, enabling hands-free real-time access to operating room resources, and promoting telemedicine and education. Conclusion. There is an increasing interest in AR among orthopaedic surgeons. Although studies show similar or better outcomes with AR compared with traditional techniques, many challenges need to be addressed before this technology is ready for widespread use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1479–1488

Aims. Informed patient consent is a legal prerequisite endorsed by multiple regulatory institutions including the Royal College of Surgeons and the General Medical Council. It is also recommended that the provision of written information is available and may take the form of a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) with multiple PILs available from leading orthopaedic institutions. PILs may empower the patient, improve compliance, and improve the patient experience. The national reading age in the United Kingdom is less than 12 years and therefore PILs should be written at a readability level not exceeding 12 years old. We aim to assess the readability of PILs currently provided by United Kingdom orthopaedic institutions. Patients and Methods. The readability of PILs on 58 common conditions provided by seven leading orthopaedic associations in January 2017, including the British Orthopaedic Association, British Hip Society, and the British Association of Spinal Surgeons, was assessed. All text in each PIL was analyzed using readability scores including the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) test. Results. The mean FKGL was 10.4 (6.7 to 17.0), indicating a mean reading age of 15 years. The mean SMOG score was 12.8 (9.7 to 17.9) indicating a mean reading age of 17 years. Conclusion. Orthopaedic-related PILs do not comply with the recommended reading age, with some requiring graduate-level reading ability. Patients do not have access to appropriate orthopaedic-related PILs. Current publicly available PILs require further review to promote patient education and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1253–9

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting to nine centres over a 50-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 19 April 2020) with a minimum of 50 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, priority (urgent or elective), procedure type, COVID-19 status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. Results. During the study period, 1,659 procedures were performed in 1,569 patients. There were 68 (4.3%) patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. There were 85 (5.4%) deaths postoperatively. Patients who had COVID-19 had a significantly lower survival rate when compared with those without a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection (67.6% vs 95.8%, p < 0.001). When adjusting for confounding variables (older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.004), hip fracture (p = 0.003), and increasing ASA grade (p < 0.001)) a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; p = 0.014). A total of 62 patients developed COVID-19 postoperatively, of which two were in the elective and 60 were in the urgent group. Patients aged > 77 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.16; p = 0.001), with increasing ASA grade (OR 2.74; p < 0.001), sustaining a hip (OR 4.56; p = 0.008) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 14.70; p < 0.001) were more likely to develop COVID-19 postoperatively. Conclusion. Perioperative COVID-19 nearly doubled the background postoperative mortality risk following surgery. Patients at risk of developing COVID-19 postoperatively (patients > 77 years, increasing morbidity, sustaining a hip or periprosthetic fracture) may benefit from perioperative shielding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1774–1781

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery. Materials and Methods. We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale. Results. The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding. Conclusion. It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416–23