Aims. Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. Methods. This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results. The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a “poor” understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. Conclusion. There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549–556

Aims. The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Methods. Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families. Results. Outcomes identified in these stages will be included in a two-round Delphi process that will involve key stakeholders in the management of SD. A final list including the identified outcomes will then be summarized in a consensus meeting attended by representatives of the key stakeholders groups. Conclusion. The best approach to provision of orthopaedic care in patients with SD is yet to be decided. The reporting of different outcomes to define success among studies, often based on personal preferences and local culture, has made it difficult to compare the effect of treatments for this condition. The development of a COS for orthopaedic management in SD will enable meaningful reporting and facilitate comparisons in future clinical trials, thereby assisting complex decision-making in the clinical management of these children. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):54–60

Aims. Orthopaedic infection is a potentially serious complication of elective and emergency trauma and orthopaedic procedures, with a high associated burden of morbidity and cost. Optimization of vitamin D levels has been postulated to be beneficial in the prevention of orthopaedic infection. This study explores the role of vitamin D in orthopaedic infection through a systematic review of available evidence. Methods. A comprehensive search was conducted on databases including Medline and Embase, as well as grey literature such as Google Scholar and The World Health Organization Database. Pooled analysis with weighted means was undertaken. Results. Pooled analysis of four studies including 651 patients found the mean 25(OH)D level to be 50.7 nmol/l with a mean incidence of infection of 70%. There was a paucity of literature exploring prophylactic 25(OH)D supplementation on reducing orthopaedic infection, however, there was evidence of association between low 25(OH)D levels and increased incidence of orthopaedic infection. Conclusion. The results indicate a significant proportion of orthopaedic patients have low 25(OH]D levels, as well as an association between low 25(OH)D levels and orthopaedic infection, but more randomized controlled trials need to be conducted to establish the benefit of prophylactic supplementation and the optimum regimen by dose and time. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):721–727

Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

Aims. The use of fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgery creates risk of radiation exposure to surgeons. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can help mitigate this. The primary aim of this study was to assess if current radiation protection in orthopaedic trauma is safe. The secondary aims were to describe normative data of radiation exposure during common orthopaedic procedures, evaluate ways to improve any deficits in protection, and validate the use of electronic personal dosimeters (EPDs) in assessing radiation dose in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Radiation exposure to surgeons during common orthopaedic trauma operations was prospectively assessed using EPDs and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Normative data for each operation type were calculated and compared to recommended guidelines. Results. Current PPE appears to mitigate more than 90% of ionizing radiation in orthopaedic fluoroscopic procedures. There is a higher exposure to the inner thigh during seated procedures. EPDs provided results for individual procedures. Conclusion. PPE currently used by surgeons in orthopaedic trauma theatre adequately reduces radiation exposure to below recommended levels. Normative data per trauma case show specific anatomical areas of higher exposure, which may benefit from enhanced radiation protection. EPDs can be used to assess real-time radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery. There may be a role in future medical wearables for orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):907–912

Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640

Aims. The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. Methods. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Results. Of the 7,201 papers reviewed, 136 included qualitative methods (0.1%). There was no significant difference between the journals, apart from Bone & Joint Open, which included 21 studies using qualitative methods, equalling 4% of its published articles. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that there is a very low number of qualitative research papers published within trauma and orthopaedic journals. Given the increasing focus on patient outcomes and improving the patient experience, it may be argued that there is a requirement to support both quantitative and qualitative approaches to orthopaedic research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods may effectively address the complex and personal aspects of patients’ care, ensuring that outcomes align with patient values and enhance overall care quality

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to “frontline” specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education. Methods. A 42-point questionnaire was designed, validated, and disseminated via e-mail and an instant-messaging platform. Results. A total of 101 orthopaedic trainees, representing the four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), completed the questionnaire. Overall, 23.1% (23/101) of trainees were redeployed to non-surgical roles. Of these, 73% (17/23) were redeployed to intensive treatment units (ITUs), 13% (3/23) to A/E, and 13%(3/23%) to general medicine. Of the trainees redeployed to ITU 100%, (17/17) received formal induction. Non-deployed or returning trainees had a significant reduction in sessions. In total, 42.9% (42/101) % of trainees were not timetabled into fracture clinic, 53% (53/101) of trainees had one allocated theatre list per week, and 63.8%(64/101) of trainees did not feel they obtained enough experience in the attached subspecialty and preferred repeating this. Overall, 93% (93/101) of respondents attended at least one weekly online webinar, with 79% (79/101) of trainees rating these as useful or very useful, while 95% (95/101) trainees attended online deanery teaching which was rated as more useful than online webinars (p = 0.005). Conclusion. Orthopaedic specialist trainees occupied an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic training. It is imperative this is properly understood to ensure orthopaedic specialist trainees achieve competencies set out in the training curriculum. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:676–682

Aims. The purpose of this survey study was to examine the demographic and lifestyle factors of women currently in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. An electronic survey was conducted of practising female orthopaedic surgeons based in the USA through both the Ruth Jackson Society and the online Facebook group “Women of Orthopaedics”. Results. The majority of surveyed female orthopaedic surgeons reported being married (76.4%; 285/373) and having children (67.6%; 252/373). In all, 66.5% (247/373) were collegiate athletes; 82.0% (306/373) reported having no female orthopaedic surgeon mentors in undergraduate and medical school. Their mean height is 65.8 inches and average weight is 147.3 lbs. Conclusion. The majority of female orthopaedic surgeons did not have female mentorship during their training. Additionally, biometrically, their build is similar to that of the average American woman. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):419–425

Aims. Preprint servers allow authors to publish full-text manuscripts or interim findings prior to undergoing peer review. Several preprint servers have extended their services to biological sciences, clinical research, and medicine. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and analyze all articles related to Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery published in five medical preprint servers, and to investigate the factors that influence the subsequent rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Methods. All preprints covering T&O surgery were systematically searched in five medical preprint servers (medRxiv, OSF Preprints, Preprints.org, PeerJ, and Research Square) and subsequently identified after a minimum of 12 months by searching for the title, keywords, and corresponding author in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. Subsequent publication of a work was defined as publication in a peer-reviewed indexed journal. The rate of publication and time to peer-reviewed publication were assessed. Differences in definitive publication rates of preprints according to geographical origin and level of evidence were analyzed. Results. The number of preprints increased from 2014 to 2020 (p < 0.001). A total of 38.6% of the identified preprints (n = 331) were published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after a mean time of 8.7 months (SD 5.4 (1 to 27)). The highest proportion of missing subsequent publications was in the preprints originating from Africa, Asia/Middle East, and South America, or in those that covered clinical research with a lower level of evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Preprints are being published in increasing numbers in T&O surgery. Depending on the geographical origin and level of evidence, almost two-thirds of preprints are not subsequently published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after one year. This raises major concerns regarding the dissemination and persistence of potentially wrong scientific work that bypasses peer review, and the orthopaedic community should discuss appropriate preventive measures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):582–588

Aims. Orthopaedic surgeries are complex, frequently performed procedures associated with significant haemorrhage and perioperative blood transfusion. Given refinements in surgical techniques and changes to transfusion practices, we aim to describe contemporary transfusion practices in orthopaedic surgery in order to inform perioperative planning and blood banking requirements. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery at four Canadian hospitals between 2014 and 2016. We studied all patients admitted to hospital for nonarthroscopic joint surgeries, amputations, and fracture surgeries. For each surgery and surgical subgroup, we characterized the proportion of patients who received red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, the mean/median number of RBC units transfused, and exposure to platelets and plasma. Results. Of the 14,584 included patients, the most commonly performed surgeries were knee arthroplasty (24.8%), hip arthroplasty (24.6%), and hip fracture surgery (17.4%). A total of 10.3% of patients received RBC transfusion; the proportion of patients receiving RBC transfusions varied widely based on the surgical subgroup (0.0% to 33.1%). Primary knee arthroplasty and hip arthroplasty, the two most common surgeries, were associated with in-hospital transfusion frequencies of 2.8% and 4.5%, respectively. RBC transfusion occurred in 25.0% of hip fracture surgeries, accounting for the greatest total number of RBC units transfused in our cohort (38.0% of all transfused RBC units). Platelet and plasma transfusions were uncommon. Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgeries were associated with variable rates of transfusion. The rate of RBC transfusion is highly dependent on the surgery type. Identifying surgeries with the highest transfusion rates, and further evaluation of factors that contribute to transfusion in identified at-risk populations, can serve to inform perioperative planning and blood bank requirements, and facilitate pre-emptive transfusion mitigation strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):850–857

Aims. The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery. Methods. This is a multicentre, prospective, longitudinal study between the Hospital for Special Surgery, (New York City, New York, USA) and Edinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, (Edinburgh, UK). Both centres are high-volume arthroplasty centres, specializing in upper and lower limb arthroplasty. Patients undergoing hip, knee, ankle, or shoulder arthroplasty at either centre, and who report being golfers prior to arthroplasty, will be included. Patient-reported outcome measures will be obtained at six weeks, three months, six months, and 12 months. A two-year period of recruitment will be undertaken of arthroplasty patients at both sites. Conclusion. The results of this prospective study will provide clinicians with accurate data to deliver to patients with regard to the likelihood of return to golf and timing of when they can expect to return to golf following their hip, knee, ankle, or shoulder arthroplasty, as well as their joint-specific functional outcomes. This will help patients to manage their postoperative expectations and plan their postoperative recovery pathway. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):490–495

Orthopaedics has been left behind in the worldwide drive towards diversity and inclusion. In the UK, only 7% of orthopaedic consultants are female. There is growing evidence that diversity increases innovation as well as patient outcomes. This paper has reviewed the literature to identify some of the common issues affecting female surgeons in orthopaedics, and ways in which we can address them: there is a wealth of evidence documenting the differences in the journey of men and women towards a consultant role. We also look at lessons learned from research in the business sector and the military. The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ is out of date and needs to enter the 21st century: microaggressions in the workplace must be challenged; we need to consider more flexible training options and support trainees who wish to become pregnant; mentors, both male and female, are imperative to provide support for trainees. The world has changed, and we need to consider how we can improve diversity to stay relevant and effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-10:893–899

Aims. Due to their radiolucency and favourable mechanical properties, carbon fibre nails may be a preferable alternative to titanium nails for oncology patients. We aim to compare the surgical characteristics and short-term results of patients who underwent intramedullary fixation with either a titanium or carbon fibre nail for pathological long-bone fracture. Methods. This single tertiary-institutional, retrospectively matched case-control study included 72 patients who underwent prophylactic or therapeutic fixation for pathological fracture of the humerus, femur, or tibia with either a titanium (control group, n = 36) or carbon fibre (case group, n = 36) intramedullary nail between 2016 to 2020. Patients were excluded if intramedullary fixation was combined with any other surgical procedure/fixation method. Outcomes included operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopic time, and complications. Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results. Patients receiving carbon nails as compared to those receiving titanium nails had higher blood loss (median 150 ml (interquartile range (IQR) 100 to 250) vs 100 ml (IQR 50 to 150); p = 0.042) and longer fluoroscopic time (median 150 seconds (IQR 114 to 182) vs 94 seconds (IQR 58 to 124); p = 0.001). Implant complications occurred in seven patients (19%) in the titanium group versus one patient (3%) in the carbon fibre group (p = 0.055). There were no notable differences between groups with regard to operating time, surgical wound infection, or survival. Conclusion. This pilot study demonstrates a non-inferior surgical and short-term clinical profile supporting further consideration of carbon fibre nails for pathological fracture fixation in orthopaedic oncology patients. Given enhanced accommodation of imaging methods important for oncological surveillance and radiation therapy planning, as well as high tolerances to fatigue stress, carbon fibre implants possess important oncological advantages over titanium implants that merit further prospective investigation. Level of evidence: III, Retrospective study. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):648–655

Aims. Due to widespread cancellations in elective orthopaedic procedures, the number of patients on waiting list for surgery is rising. We aim to determine and quantify if disparities exist between inpatient and day-case orthopaedic waiting list numbers; we also aim to determine if there is a ‘hidden burden’ that already exists due to reductions in elective secondary care referrals. Methods. Retrospective data were collected between 1 April 2020 and 31 December 2020 and compared with the same nine-month period the previous year. Data collected included surgeries performed (day-case vs inpatient), number of patients currently on the orthopaedic waiting list (day-case vs inpatient), and number of new patient referrals from primary care and therapy services. Results. There was a 52.8% reduction in our elective surgical workload in 2020. The majority of surgeries performed in 2020 were day case surgeries (739; 86.6%) with 47.2% of these performed in the independent sector on a ‘lift and shift’ service. The total number of patients on our waiting lists has risen by 30.1% in just 12 months. As we have been restricted in performing inpatient surgery, the inpatient waiting lists have risen by 73.2%, compared to a 1.6% rise in our day-case waiting list. New patient referral from primary care and therapy services have reduced from 3,357 in 2019 to 1,722 in 2020 (49.7% reduction). Conclusion. This study further exposes the increasing number of patients on orthopaedic waiting lists. We observed disparities between inpatient and day-case waiting lists, with dramatic increases in the number of inpatients on the waiting lists. The number of new patient referrals has decreased, and we predict an influx of referrals as the pandemic eases, further adding to the pressure on inpatient waiting lists. Robust planning and allocation of adequate resources is essential to deal with this backlog. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):530–534

Aims. The number of females within the speciality of trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) is increasing. The aim of this study was to identify: 1) current attitudes and behaviours of UK female T&O surgeons towards pregnancy; 2) any barriers faced towards pregnancy with a career in T&O surgery; and 3) areas for improvement. Methods. This is a cross-sectional study using an anonymous 13-section web-based survey distributed to female-identifying T&O trainees, speciality and associate specialist surgeons (SASs) and locally employed doctors (LEDs), fellows, and consultants in the UK. Demographic data was collected as well as closed and open questions with adaptive answering relating to attitudes towards childbearing and experiences of fertility and complications associated with pregnancy. A descriptive data analysis was carried out. Results. A total of 226 UK female T&O surgeons completed the survey. All regions of the UK were represented. Overall, 99/226 (44%) of respondents had at least one child, while 21/226 (9.3%) did not want children. Median age at first child was 33 years (interquartile range 32 to 36). Two-thirds (149/226; 66%) of respondents delayed childbearing due to a career in T&O and 140/226 (69%) of respondents had experienced bias from colleagues directed at female T&O surgeons having children during training. Nearly 24/121 (20%) of respondents required fertility assistance, 35/121 (28.9%) had experienced a miscarriage, and 53/121 (43.8%) had experienced obstetric complications. Conclusion. A large proportion of female T&O surgeons have and want children. T&O surgeons in the UK delay childbearing, have experienced bias and have high rates of infertility and obstetric complications. The information from this study will support female T&O surgeons with decision making and assist employers with workforce planning. Further steps are necessary in order to support female T&O surgeons having families. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):970–979

Aims. The purpose of our study was to determine which groups of orthopaedic providers favour virtual care, and analyze overall orthopaedic provider perceptions of virtual care. We hypothesize that providers with less clinical experience will favour virtual care, and that orthopaedic providers overall will show increased preference for virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic and decreased preference during non-pandemic circumstances. Methods. An orthopaedic research consortium at an academic medical system developed a survey examining provider perspectives regarding orthopaedic virtual care. Survey items were scored on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”) and compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. Results. Providers with less experience were more likely to recommend virtual care for follow-up visits (3.61 on the Likert scale (SD 0.95) vs 2.90 (SD 1.23); p = 0.006) and feel that virtual care was essential to patient wellbeing (3.98 (SD 0.95) vs 3.00 (SD 1.16); p < 0.001) during the pandemic. Less experienced providers also viewed virtual visits as providing a similar level of care as in-person visits (2.41 (SD 1.02) vs 1.76 (SD 0.87); p = 0.006) and more time-efficient than in-person visits (3.07 (SD 1.19) vs 2.34 (SD 1.14); p = 0.012) in non-pandemic circumstances. During the pandemic, most providers viewed virtual care as effective in providing essential care (83.6%, n = 51) and wanted to schedule patients for virtual care follow-up (82.2%, n = 50); only 10.9% (n = 8) of providers preferred virtual visits in non-pandemic circumstances. Conclusion. Orthopaedic providers with less clinical experience seem to favourably view virtual care both during the pandemic and under non-pandemic circumstances. Providers in general appear to view virtual care positively during the pandemic but are less accommodating towards it in non-pandemic circumstances. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):405–410

Aims. The aim of this study was to surveil whether the standard operating procedure created for the NHS Golden Jubilee sufficiently managed COVID-19 risk to allow safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery. Methods. This was a prospective study of all elective orthopaedic patients within an elective unit running a green pathway at a COVID-19 light site. Rates of preoperative and 30-day postoperative COVID-19 symptoms or infection were examined for a period of 40 weeks. The unit resumed elective orthopaedic services on 29 June 2020 at a reduced capacity for a limited number of day-case procedures with strict patient selection criteria, increasing to full service on 29 August 2020 with no patient selection criteria. Results. A total of 2,373 cases were planned in the 40-week study period. Surgery was cancelled in 59 cases, six (10.2%) of which were due to having a positive preoperative COVID-19 screening test result. Of the remaining 2,314, 996 (43%) were male and 1,318 (57%) were female. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 59.2 to 74.6). The median American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was 2. Hip and knee arthroplasties accounted for the majority of the operations (76%). Six patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively (0.25%) and 39 patients were tested for COVID-19 within 30 days after discharge, with only five patients testing positive (0.22%). Conclusion. Through strict application of a COVID-19 green pathway, elective orthopaedic surgery could be safely delivered to a large number of patients with no selection criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):951–957

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Aims. This study assesses patient barriers to successful telemedicine care in orthopaedic practices in a large academic practice in the COVID-19 era. Methods. In all, 381 patients scheduled for telemedicine visits with three orthopaedic surgeons in a large academic practice from 1 April 2020 to 12 June 2020 were asked to participate in a telephone survey using a standardized Institutional Review Board-approved script. An unsuccessful telemedicine visit was defined as patient-reported difficulty of use or reported dissatisfaction with teleconferencing. Patient barriers were defined as explicitly reported barriers of unsatisfactory visit using a process-based satisfaction metric. Statistical analyses were conducted using analysis of variances (ANOVAs), ranked ANOVAs, post-hoc pairwise testing, and chi-squared independent analysis with 95% confidence interval. Results. The survey response rate was 39.9% (n = 152). The mean age of patients was 51.1 years (17 to 85), and 55 patients (38%) were male. Of 146 respondents with completion of survey, 27 (18.5%) reported a barrier to completing their telemedicine visit. The majority of patients were satisfied with using telemedicine for their orthopaedic appointment (88.8%), and found the experience to be easy (86.6%). Patient-reported barriers included lack of proper equipment/internet connection (n = 13; 8.6%), scheduling difficulty (n = 2; 1.3%), difficulty following directions (n = 10; 6.6%), and patient-reported discomfort (n = 2; 1.3%). Barriers based on patient characteristics were age > 61 years, non-English primary language, inexperience with video conferencing, and unwillingness to try telemedicine prior to COVID-19. Conclusion. The barriers identified in this study could be used to screen patients who would potentially have an unsuccessful telemedicine visit, allowing practices to provide assistance to patients to reduce the risk of an unsuccessful visit. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):745–751

Aims. The aims of this study were to describe the demographic, socioeconomic, and educational factors associated with core surgical trainees (CSTs) who apply to and receive offers for higher surgical training (ST3) posts in Trauma & Orthopaedics (T&O). Methods. Data collected by the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019 were used in this retrospective longitudinal cohort study comprising 1,960 CSTs eligible for ST3. The primary outcome measures were whether CSTs applied for a T&O ST3 post and if they were subsequently offered a post. A directed acyclic graph was used for detecting confounders and adjusting logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), which assessed the association between the primary outcomes and relevant exposures of interest, including: age, sex, ethnicity, parental socioeconomic status (SES), domiciliary status, category of medical school, Situational Judgement Test (SJT) scores at medical school, and success in postgraduate examinations. This study followed STROBE guidelines. Results. Compared to the overall cohort of CSTs, females were significantly less likely to apply to T&O (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46; n = 155/720 female vs n = 535/1,240 male; p < 0.001). CSTs who were not UK-domiciled prior to university were nearly twice as likely to apply to T&O (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.85; n = 50/205 vs not UK-domiciled vs n = 585/1,580 UK-domiciled; p < 0.001). Age, ethnicity, SES, and medical school category were not associated with applying to T&O. Applicants who identified as ‘black and minority ethnic’ (BME) were significantly less likely to be offered a T&O ST3 post (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97; n = 165/265 BME vs n = 265/385 white; p = 0.034). Differences in age, sex, SES, medical school category, and SJT scores were not significantly associated with being offered a T&O ST3 post. Conclusion. There is an evident disparity in sex between T&O applicants and an ethnic disparity between those who receive offers on their first attempt. Further high-quality, prospective research in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period is needed to improve equality, diversity, and inclusion in T&O training. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):697–707

Aims. To evaluate if, for orthopaedic trainees, additional cadaveric simulation training or standard training alone yields superior radiological and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation or hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. Methods. This was a preliminary, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group randomized controlled trial in nine secondary and tertiary NHS hospitals in England. Researchers were blinded to group allocation. Overall, 40 trainees in the West Midlands were eligible: 33 agreed to take part and were randomized, five withdrew after randomization, 13 were allocated cadaveric training, and 15 were allocated standard training. The intervention was an additional two-day cadaveric simulation course. The control group received standard on-the-job training. Primary outcome was implant position on the postoperative radiograph: tip-apex distance (mm) (DHS) and leg length discrepancy (mm) (hemiarthroplasty). Secondary clinical outcomes were procedure time, length of hospital stay, acute postoperative complication rate, and 12-month mortality. Procedure-specific secondary outcomes were intraoperative radiation dose (for DHS) and postoperative blood transfusion requirement (hemiarthroplasty). Results. Eight female (29%) and 20 male trainees (71%), mean age 29.4 years, performed 317 DHS operations and 243 hemiarthroplasties during ten months of follow-up. Primary analysis was a random effect model with surgeon-level fixed effects of patient condition, patient age, and surgeon experience, with a random intercept for surgeon. Under the intention-to-treat principle, for hemiarthroplasty there was better implant position in favour of cadaveric training, measured by leg length discrepancy ≤ 10 mm (odds ratio (OR) 4.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 14.22); p = 0.027). There were significantly fewer postoperative blood transfusions required in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty by cadaveric-trained compared to standard-trained surgeons (OR 6.00 (95% CI 1.83 to 19.69); p = 0.003). For DHS, there was no significant between-group difference in implant position as measured by tip-apex distance ≤ 25 mm (OR 6.47 (95% CI 0.97 to 43.05); p = 0.053). No between-group differences were observed for any secondary clinical outcomes. Conclusion. Trainees randomized to additional cadaveric training performed hip fracture fixation with better implant positioning and fewer postoperative blood transfusions in hemiarthroplasty. This effect, which was previously unknown, may be a consequence of the intervention. Further study is required. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):602–611

Aims. COVID-19-related patient care delays have resulted in an unprecedented patient care backlog in the field of orthopaedics. The objective of this study is to examine orthopaedic provider preferences regarding the patient care backlog and financial recovery initiatives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. An orthopaedic research consortium at a multi-hospital tertiary care academic medical system developed a three-part survey examining provider perspectives on strategies to expand orthopaedic patient care and financial recovery. Section 1 asked for preferences regarding extending clinic hours, section 2 assessed surgeon opinions on expanding surgical opportunities, and section 3 questioned preferred strategies for departmental financial recovery. The survey was sent to the institution’s surgical and nonoperative orthopaedic providers. Results. In all, 73 of 75 operative (n = 55) and nonoperative (n = 18) providers responded to the survey. A total of 92% of orthopaedic providers (n = 67) were willing to extend clinic hours. Most providers preferred extending clinic schedule until 6pm on weekdays. When asked about extending surgical block hours, 96% of the surgeons (n = 53) were willing to extend operating room (OR) block times. Most surgeons preferred block times to be extended until 7pm (63.6%, n = 35). A majority of surgeons (53%, n = 29) believe that over 50% of their surgical cases could be performed at an ambulatory surgery centre (ASC). Of the strategies to address departmental financial deficits, 85% of providers (n = 72) were willing to work extra hours without a pay cut. Conclusion. Most orthopaedic providers are willing to help with patient care backlogs and revenue recovery by working extended hours instead of having their pay reduced. These findings provide insights that can be incorporated into COVID-19 recovery strategies. Level of Evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):562–568

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

Aims. Patient-reported outcome measures have become an important part of routine care. The aim of this study was to determine if Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures can be used to create patient subgroups for individuals seeking orthopaedic care. Methods. This was a cross-sectional study of patients from Duke University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery clinics (14 ambulatory and four hospital-based). There were two separate cohorts recruited by convenience sampling (i.e. patients were included in the analysis only if they completed PROMIS measures during a new patient visit). Cohort #1 (n = 12,141; December 2017 to December 2018,) included PROMIS short forms for eight domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Pain Intensity, Depression, Anxiety, Sleep Quality, Participation in Social Roles, and Fatigue) and Cohort #2 (n = 4,638; January 2019 to August 2019) included PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing instruments for four domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Depression, and Sleep Quality). Cluster analysis (K-means method) empirically derived subgroups and subgroup differences in clinical and sociodemographic factors were identified with one-way analysis of variance. Results. Cluster analysis yielded four subgroups with similar clinical characteristics in Cohort #1 and #2. The subgroups were: 1) Normal Function: within normal limits in Physical Function, Pain Interference, Depression, and Sleep Quality; 2) Mild Impairment: mild deficits in Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Sleep Quality but with Depression within normal limits; 3) Impaired Function, Not Distressed: moderate deficits in Physical Function and Pain Interference, but within normal limits for Depression and Sleep Quality; and 4) Impaired Function, Distressed: moderate (Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Sleep Quality) and mild (Depression) deficits. Conclusion. These findings suggest orthopaedic patient subgroups differing in physical function, pain, and psychosocial distress can be created from as few as four different PROMIS measures. Longitudinal research is necessary to determine whether these subgroups have prognostic validity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):493–502

Aims. There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods. A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results. A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion. Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53

Aims. Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients undergoing primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty over a six-month period, from 1 July to 31 December 2020, were compared to the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, wait to surgery, COVID-19 status, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results. A total of 1,311 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty in the six-month period following recommencement of elective services in 2020 compared to 1,527 patients the year before. Waiting time to surgery increased in post-COVID-19 group (137 days vs 78; p < 0.001). Length of stay also significantly increased (0.49 days; p < 0.001) despite no difference in age or ASA grade. There were no cases of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. Time to surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly higher following recommencement of elective orthopaedic services in the latter part of 2020 in comparison to a similar patient cohort from the year before. Longer waiting times may have contributed to the clinical and radiological deterioration of arthritis and general musculoskeletal conditioning, which may in turn have affected immediate postoperative rehabilitation and mobilization, as well as increasing hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):655–660

Aims. During the COVID-19 pandemic, drilling has been classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of bone drilling on splatter generation. Our aim was to quantify the effect of drilling on splatter generation within the orthopaedic operative setting. Methods. This study was performed using a Stryker System 7 dual rotating drill at full speed. Two fluid mediums (Videne (Solution 1) and Fluorescein (Solution 2)) were used to simulate drill splatter conditions. Drilling occurred at saw bone level (0 cm) and at different heights (20 cm, 50 cm, and 100 cm) above the target to simulate the surgeon ‘working arm length’, with and without using a drill guide. The furthest droplets were marked and the droplet displacement was measured in cm. A surgical microscope was used to detect microscopic droplets. Results. Bone drilling produced 5 cm and 7 cm droplet displacement using Solutions 1 and 2, respectively. Drilling at 100 cm above the target produced the greatest splatter generation with a 95 cm macroscopic droplet displacement using Solution 2. Microscopic droplet generation was noticed at further distances than what can be macroscopically seen using Solution 1 (98 cm). Using the drill guide, there was negligible drill splatter generation. Conclusion. Our study has shown lower than anticipated drill splatter generation. The use of a drill guide acted as a protective measure and significantly reduced drill splatter. We therefore recommend using a drill guide at all times to reduce the risk of viral transmission in the operative setting. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):752–756

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA. Methods. A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted of all orthopaedic oncologic patients undergoing surgical evaluation from March to June 2020. Patients were prioritized as level 0-IV, 0 being elective and IV being emergent. Only priority levels 0 to III were included. Delay duration was measured in days and resulting morbidities were categorized into seven groups: prolonged pain/disability; unplanned preoperative radiation and/or chemotherapy; local tumour progression; increased systemic disease; missed opportunity for surgery due to progression of disease/lost to follow up; delay in diagnosis; and no morbidity. Results. Overall, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. There were eight benign tumours, seven metastatic, seven primary sarcomas, one multiple myeloma, and two patients without a biopsy proven diagnosis. There was no priority level 0, two priority level I, six priority level II, and 17 priority level III cases. The mean duration of delay for priority level I was 114 days (84 to 143), priority level II was 88 days (63 to 133), and priority level III was 77 days (35 to 269). Prolonged pain/disability and delay in diagnosis, affecting 52% and 40%,respectively, represented the two most frequent morbidities. Local tumour progression and increased systemic disease affected 32% and 24% respectively. No patients tested positive for COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 related delays in surgical management led to major morbidity in this studied orthopaedic oncologic patient population. By understanding these morbidities through clearer hindsight, a thoughtful approach can be developed to balance the risk of COVID-19 exposure versus delay in treatment, ensuring optimal care for orthopedic oncologic patients as the pandemic continues with intermittent calls for halting surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):236–242

Aims. COVID-19 remains the major focus of healthcare provision. Managing orthopaedic emergencies effectively, while at the same time protecting patients and staff, remains a challenge. We explore how the UK lockdown affected the rate, distribution, and type of orthopaedic emergency department (ED) presentations, using the same period in 2019 as reference. This article discusses considerations for the ED and trauma wards to help to maintain the safety of patients and healthcare providers with an emphasis on more remote geography. Methods. The study was conducted from 23 March 2020 to 5 May 2020 during the full lockdown period (2020 group) and compared to the same time frame in 2019 (2019 group). Included are all patients who attended the ED at Raigmore Hospital during this period from both the local area and tertiary referral from throughout the UK Highlands. Data was collected and analyzed through the ED Information System (EDIS) as well as ward and theatre records. Results. A total of 1,978 patients presented to the ED during the lockdown period, compared to 4,777 patients in the same timeframe in 2019; a reduction of 58.6%. Orthopaedic presentations in 2020 and 2019 were 736 (37.2%) and 1,729 (36.2%) respectively, representing a 57.4% reduction. During the lockdown, 43.6% of operations were major procedures (n = 48) and 56.4% were minor procedures (n = 62), representing a significant proportional shift. Conclusion. During the COVID- 19 lockdown period there was a significant reduction in ED attendances and orthopaedic presentations compared to 2019. We also observed that there was a proportional increase in fractures in elderly patients and in minor injuries requiring surgery. These represented the majority of the orthopaedic workload during the lockdown period of 2020. Given this shift towards smaller surgical procedures, we suggest that access to a minor operating theatre in or close to ED would be desirable in the event of a second wave or future crisis

Aims. The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations. Methods. This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline. Results. Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission. Conclusion. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309–315

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has had a significant impact on trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) departments worldwide. To manage the peak of the epidemic, orthopaedic staff were redeployed to frontline medical care; these roles included managing minor injury units, forming a “proning” team, and assisting in the intensive care unit (ICU). In addition, outpatient clinics were restructured to facilitate virtual consultations, elective procedures were cancelled, and inpatient hospital admissions minimized to reduce nosocomial COVID-19 infections. Urgent operations for fractures, infection and tumours went ahead but required strict planning to ensure patient safety. Orthopaedic training has also been significantly impacted during this period. This article discusses the impact of COVID-19 on T&O in the UK and highlights key lessons learned that may help to proactively prepare for the next global pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:420–423

Aims. COVID-19 has changed the practice of orthopaedics across the globe. The medical workforce has dealt with this outbreak with varying strategies and adaptations, which are relevant to its field and to the region. As one of the ‘hotspots’ in the UK , the surgical branch of trauma and orthopaedics need strategies to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of COVID-19. Methods. Adapting to the crisis locally involved five operational elements: 1) triaging and workflow of orthopaedic patients; 2) operation theatre feasibility and functioning; 3) conservation of human resources and management of workforce in the department; 4) speciality training and progression; and 5) developing an exit strategy to resume elective work. Two hospitals under our trust were redesignated based on the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Registrar/consultant led telehealth reviews were carried out for early postoperative patients. Workflows for the management of outpatient care and inpatient care were created. We looked into the development of a dedicated operating space to perform the emergency orthopaedic surgeries without symptoms of COVID-19. Between March 23 and April 23, 2020, we have surgically treated 133 patients across both our hospitals in our trust. This mainly included hip fractures and fractures/infection affecting the hand. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic is not the first disease outbreak affecting the UK, nor will it be the last. The current crisis has necessitated rapid development of new hospital guidelines and early adaptive strategies in our services. Protocols and directives need to be formalized keeping in mind that COVID-19 will have a long and protracted course until a definitive cure is discovered

Aims. Our rural orthopaedic service has undergone service restructure during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to sustain hip fracture care. All adult trauma care has been centralised to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for assessment and medical input, before transferring those requiring operative intervention to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital. We aim to review the impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture workload and service changes upon management of hip fractures. Methods. We reviewed our prospectively maintained trust database and National Hip Fracture Database records for the months of March and April between the years 2016 and 2020. Our assessment included fracture pattern (intrascapular vs extracapsular hip fracture), treatment intervention, length of stay and mortality. Results. We treated 288 patients during March and April between 2016 and 2020, with a breakdown of 55, 58, 53, 68, and 54 from 2016 to 2020 respectively. Fracture pattern distribution in the pre-COVID-19 years of 2016 to 2019 was 58% intracapsular and 42% extracapsular. In 2020 (COVID-19 period) the fracture patterns were 65% intracapsular and 35% extracapsular. Our mean length of stay was 13.1 days (SD 8.2) between 2016 to 2019, and 5.0 days (6.3) days in 2020 (p < 0.001). Between 2016 and 2019 we had three deaths in hip fracture patients, and one death in 2020. Hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw fixation have been the mainstay of operative intervention across the five years and this has continued in the COVID-19 period. We have experienced a rise in conservatively managed patients; ten in 2020 compared to 14 over the previous four years. Conclusion. There has not been a reduction in the number of hip fractures during COVID-19 period compared to the same time period over previous years. In our experience, there has been an increase in conservative treatment and decreased length of stay during the COVID -19 period. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:500–507

Aims. The primary aim is to estimate the current and potential number of patients on NHS England orthopaedic elective waiting lists by November 2020. The secondary aims are to model recovery strategies; review the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty from National Joint Registry (NJR) data; and assess the cost of returning to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. Methods. A model of referral, waiting list, and eventual surgery was created and calibrated using historical data from NHS England (April 2017 to March 2020) and was used to investigate the possible consequences of unmet demand resulting from fewer patients entering the treatment pathway and recovery strategies. NJR data were used to estimate the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty by August 2020 and NHS tariff costs were used to calculate the financial burden. Results. By November 2020, the elective waiting list in England is predicted to be between 885,286 and 1,028,733. If reduced hospital capacity is factored into the model, returning to full capacity by November, the waiting list could be as large as 1.4 million. With a 30% increase in productivity, it would take 20 months if there was no hidden burden of unreferred patients, and 48 months if there was a hidden burden, to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. By August 2020, the estimated deficits of hip and knee arthroplasties from NJR data were 18,298 (44.8%) and 16,567 (38.6%), respectively, compared to the same time period in 2019. The cost to clear this black log would be £198,811,335. Conclusion. There will be up to 1.4 million patients on elective orthopaedic waiting lists in England by November 2020, approximate three-times the pre-COVID-19 average. There are various strategies for recovery to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers reliant on increasing capacity, but these have substantial cost implications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):103–110

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. Healthcare systems have been rapidly restructured to meet COVID-19 demand. Clinicians are working to novel clinical guidelines, treating new patient cohorts and working in unfamiliar environments. Trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) has experienced cancellation of routine clinics and operating, with redistribution of the workload and human resources. To date, no studies have evaluated the mental health impact of these changes on the T&O workforce. We report the results of a novel survey on the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of our orthopaedic workforce and the contributory factors. Methods. A 20-question survey-based cross-sectional study of orthopaedic team members was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective was to identify the impact of the pandemic on mental health in the form of major depressive disorder (MDD) and general anxiety disorder (GAD). The survey incorporated the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-2), which is validated for screening of MDD, and the generalized anxiety disorder questionnaire (GAD-2), which is validated for screening of GAD. Results. There were 62 respondents (18 females and 44 males). As compared to the general population, we noted a greater estimated prevalence of GAD (17.7% vs 5.9%, p = 0.0009297) and MDD (19.4% vs 3.3%, p = 0.0000007731). The prevalence of MDD symptoms was greatest among senior house officers (SHOs) (p = 0.02216). Female respondents scored higher for symptoms of MDD (p = 0.03583) and GAD (p = 0.0001086). Those identifying as ‘Black, African, Caribbean or Black British’ displayed a higher prevalence of GAD symptoms (p = 0.001575) and felt least supported at work (p = 0.001341). Conclusion. Our study, in the first of its kind, shows a significant prevalence of GAD and MDD in the workforce. We found that SHOs, females and those of Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British origin were disproportionately affected. Action should be taken to help prevent adverse mental health outcomes for our colleagues during the pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:316–325

Introduction. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a rapidly implemented restructuring of UK healthcare services. The The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, became a central hub for the provision of trauma services for North Central/East London (NCEL) while providing a musculoskeletal tumour service for the south of England, the Midlands, and Wales and an urgent spinal service for London. This study reviews our paediatric practice over this period in order to share our experience and lessons learned. Our hospital admission pathways are described and the safety of surgical and interventional radiological procedures performed under general anaesthesia (GA) with regards to COVID-19 in a paediatric population are evaluated. Methods. All paediatric patients (≤ 16 years) treated in our institution during the six-week peak period of the pandemic were included. Prospective data for all paediatric trauma and urgent elective admissions and retrospective data for all sarcoma admissions were collected. Telephone interviews were conducted with all patients and families to assess COVID-19 related morbidity at 14 days post-discharge. Results. Overall, 100 children underwent surgery or interventional radiological procedures under GA between 20 March and 8 May 2020. There were 35 trauma cases, 20 urgent elective orthopaedic cases, two spinal emergency cases, 25 admissions for interventional radiology procedures, and 18 tumour cases. 78% of trauma cases were performed within 24 hours of referral. In the 97% who responded at two weeks following discharge, there were no cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in any patient or member of their households. Conclusion. Despite the extensive restructuring of services and the widespread concerns over the surgical and anaesthetic management of paediatric patients during this period, we treated 100 asymptomatic patients across different orthopaedic subspecialties without apparent COVID-19 or unexpected respiratory complications in the early postoperative period. The data provides assurance for health care professionals and families and informs the consenting process. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:287–292

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to healthcare systems across the globe in 2020. There were concerns surrounding early reports of increased mortality among patients undergoing emergency or non-urgent surgery. We report the morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures during the UK first stage of the pandemic. Methods. Institutional review board approval was obtained for a review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures between March and May 2020 at a specialist orthopaedic centre in the UK. Data included diagnoses, comorbidities, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, length of stay, and complications. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, medical and surgical complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge. The data collated were compared with series from the preceding three months. Results. There were 167 elective procedures performed in the first three weeks of the study period, prior to the first national lockdown, and 57 emergency procedures thereafter. Three patients (1.3%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. There was one death (0.45%) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection after an emergency procedure. None of the patients developed complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection after elective arthroplasty. There was no observed spike in complications during in-hospital stay or in the early postoperative period. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between pre-COVID-19 and peri-COVID-19 groups (p = 0.624). We observed a higher number of emergency procedures performed during the pandemic within our institute. Conclusion. An international cohort has reported 30-day mortality as 28.8% following orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic. There are currently no reports on clinical outcomes of patients treated with lower limb reconstructive surgery during the same period. While an effective vaccine is developed and widely accepted, it is very likely that SARS-CoV2 infection remains endemic. We believe that this report will help guide future restoration planning here in the UK and abroad. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):323–329

Aims. Now that we are in the deceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has shifted to how to safely reinstate elective operating. Regional and speciality specific data is important to guide this decision-making process. This study aimed to review 30-day mortality for all patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery during the peak of the pandemic within our region. Methods. This multicentre study reviewed data on all patients undergoing trauma and orthopaedic surgery in a region from 18 March 2020 to 27 April 2020. Information was collated from regional databases. Patients were COVID-19-positive if they had positive laboratory testing and/or imaging consistent with the infection. 30-day mortality was assessed for all patients. Secondly, 30-day mortality in fracture neck of femur patients was compared to the same time period in 2019. Results. Overall, 496 operations were carried out in 484 patients. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.9%. Seven out of nine deceased patients underwent surgery for a fractured neck of femur. In all, 27 patients contracted COVID-19 in the peri-operative period; of these, four patients died within 30 days (14.8%). In addition, 21 of the 27 patients in this group had a fractured neck of femur, 22 were over the age of 70 years (81.5%). Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade > 3 and/or age > 75 years were at significantly higher risk of death if they contracted COVID-19 within the study period. Conclusion. Overall 30-day postoperative mortality in trauma and orthopaedic surgery patients remains low at 1.9%. There was no 30-day mortality in patients ASA 1 or 2. Patients with significant comorbidities, increasing age, and ASA 3 or above remain at the highest risk. For patients with COVID-19 infection, postoperative 30-day mortality was 14.8%. The reintroduction of elective services should consider individual patient risk profile (including for ASA grade). Effective postoperative strategies should also be employed to try and reduce postoperative exposure to the virus. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:392–397

Aims. We aim to objectively assess the impact of COVID-19 on mean total operative cases for all indicative procedures (as outlined by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST)) experienced by orthopaedic trainees in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Subjective experiences were reported for each trainee using questionnaires. Methods. During the first four weeks of the nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19, the objective impact of the pandemic on each trainee’s surgical caseload exposure was assessed using data from individual trainee logbook profiles in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Independent predictor variables included the trainee grade (ST 3 to 8), the individual trainee, the unit that the logbook was reported from, and the year in which the logbook was recorded. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to assess for any statistically significant predictor variables. The subjective experience of each trainee was captured using an electronic questionnaire. Results. The mean number of total procedures per trainee over four weeks was 36.8 (7 to 99; standard deviation (SD) 19.67) in 2018, 40.6 (6 to 81; SD 17.90) in 2019, and 18.3 (3 to 65; SD 11.70) during the pandemic of 2020 (p = 0.043). Significant reductions were noted for all elective indicative procedures, including arthroplasty (p = 0.019), osteotomy (p = 0.045), nerve decompression (p = 0.024) and arthroscopy (p = 0.024). In contrast, none of the nine indicative procedures for trauma were reduced. There was a significant inter-unit difference in the mean number of total cases (p = 0.029) and indicative cases (p = 0.0005) per trainee. We noted that 7.69% (n = 3) of trainees contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean number of operative cases per trainee has been significantly reduced for four of the 13 indicative procedures, as outlined by the JCST. Reassignment of trainees to high-volume institutions in the future may be a plausible approach to mitigate significant training deficits in those trainees worst impacted by the reduction in operative exposure

Aims. To determine the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaediatric admissions and fracture clinics within a regional integrated care system (ICS). Methods. A retrospective review was performed for all paediatric orthopaedic patients admitted across the region during the recent lockdown period (24 March 2020 to 10 May 2020) and the same period in 2019. Age, sex, mechanism, anatomical region, and treatment modality were compared, as were fracture clinic attendances within the receiving regional major trauma centre (MTC) between the two periods. Results. Paediatric trauma admissions across the region fell by 33% (197 vs 132) with a proportional increase to 59% (n = 78) of admissions to the MTC during lockdown compared with 28.4% in 2019 (N = 56). There was a reduction in manipulation under anaesthetic (p = 0.015) and the use of Kirschner wires (K-wires) (p = 0.040) between the two time periods. The median time to surgery remained one day in both (2019 IQR 0 to 2; 2020 IQR 1 to 1). Supracondylar fractures were the most common reason for fracture clinic attendance (17.3%, n = 19) with a proportional increase of 108.4% vs 2019 (2019 n = 20; 2020 n = 19) (p = 0.007). While upper limb injuries and falls from play apparatus, equipment, or height remained the most common indications for admission, there was a reduction in sports injuries (p < 0.001) but an increase in lacerations (p = 0.031). Fracture clinic management changed with 67% (n = 40) of follow-up appointments via telephone and 69% (n = 65) of patients requiring cast immobilization treated with a 3M Soft Cast, enabling self-removal. The safeguarding team saw a 22% reduction in referrals (2019: n = 41, 2020: n = 32). Conclusion. During this viral pandemic, the number of trauma cases decreased with a change in the mechanism of injury, median age of presentation, and an increase in referrals to the regional MTC. Adaptions in standard practice led to fewer MUA, and K-wire procedures being performed, more supracondylar fractures managed through clinic and an increase in the use of removable cast. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:424–430

Aims. COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. Methods. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19. Results. A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019. Conclusion. Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520–529

Aims. The new COVID-19 variant was reported by the authorities of the UK to the World Health Organization (WHO) on 14 December 2020. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and nosocomial infection rates in major trauma and orthopaedic patients comparing the first and second wave of COVID-19 infection. Methods. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected trauma database was reviewed at a level 1 major trauma centre from 1 December 2020 to 18 February 2021 looking at demographics, clinical characteristics, and nosocomial infections and compared to our previously published first wave data (26 January 2020 to 14 April 2020). Results. From 1 December 2020 to 18 February 2021, 522 major trauma patients were identified with a mean age of 54.6 years, and 53.4% (n = 279) were male. Common admissions were falls (318; 60.9%) and road traffic accidents (RTAs; 71 (13.6%); 262 of these patients (50.2%) had surgery. In all, 75 patients (14.4%) tested positive for COVID-19, of which 51 (68%) were nosocomial. Surgery on COVID-19 patients increased to 46 (61.3%) in the second wave compared to 13 (33.3%) in the first wave (p = 0.005). ICU admissions of patients with COVID-19 infection increased from two (5.1%) to 16 (20.5%), respectively (p = 0.024). Second wave mortality was 6.1% (n = 32) compared to first wave of 4.7% (n = 31). Cardiovascular (CV) disease (35.9%; n = 14); p = 0.027) and dementia (17.9%; n = 7); p = 0.030) were less in second wave than the first. Overall, 13 patients (25.5%) were Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME), and five (9.8%) had a BMI > 30 kg/m. 2. The mean time from admission to diagnosis of COVID-19 was 13.9 days (3 to 44). Overall, 12/75 (16%) of all COVID-19 patients died. Conclusion. During the second wave, COVID-19 infected three-times more patients. There were double the number of operative cases, and quadruple the cases of ICU admissions. The patients were younger with less dementia and CV disease with lower mortality. Concomitant COVID-19 and the necessity of major trauma surgery showed 13% mortality in the second wave compared with 15.4% in the first wave. In contrast to the literature, we showed a high percentage of nosocomial infection, normal BMI, and limited BAME infections. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):661–670

Introduction. The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method. A retrospective, single centre, observational cohort study of all patients undergoing surgery between 17 March 2020 and 3May 2020 was performed. Outcomes were stratified by British Orthopaedic Association COVID-19 Patient Risk Assessment Tool. Patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at the time of surgery were excluded. Results. Overall, 96 patients assessed as negative for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of surgery underwent 100 emergency or urgent orthopaedic procedures during the study period. Within 30 days of surgery 9.4% of patients (n = 9) were found to be SARS-CoV-2 positive by nasopharyngeal swab. The overall 30 day mortality rate across the whole cohort of patients during this period was 3% (n = 3). Of those testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 66% (n = 6) developed significant COVID-19 related complications and there was a 33% 30-day mortality rate (n = 3). Overall, the 30-day mortality in patients classified as BOA low or medium risk (n = 69) was 0%, whereas in those classified as high or very high risk (n = 27) it was 11.1%. Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgery in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients who transition to positive within 30 days of surgery carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. In lower risk groups, the overall risk of becoming SARS-CoV-2 positive, and subsequently developing a significant postoperative related complication, was low even during the peak of the pandemic. In addition to ensuring patients are SARS-CoV-2 negative at the time of surgery it is important that the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 is minimized through their recovery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:474–480

Introduction. Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are being increasingly used to offer safe and efficient orthopaedic review without the requirement for face-to-face contact. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to develop an online referral pathway that would allow us to provide definitive orthopaedic management plans and reduce face-to-face contact at the fracture clinics. Methods. All patients presenting to the emergency department from 21March 2020 with a musculoskeletal injury or potential musculoskeletal infection deemed to require orthopaedic input were discussed using a secure messaging app. A definitive management plan was communicated by an on-call senior orthopaedic decision-maker. We analyzed the time to decision, if further information was needed, and the referral outcome. An analysis of the orthopaedic referrals for the same period in 2019 was also performed as a comparison. Results. During the study period, 295 patients with mean age of 7.93 years (standard error (SE) 0.24) were reviewed. Of these, 25 (9.8%) were admitted, 17 (5.8%) were advised to return for planned surgical intervention, 105 (35.6%) were referred to a face-to-face fracture clinic, 137 (46.4%) were discharged with no follow-up, and seven (2.4%) were referred to other services. The mean time to decision was 20.14 minutes (SE 1.73). There was a significant difference in the time to decision between patients referred to fracture clinic and patients discharged (mean 25.25 minutes (SE 3.18) vs mean 2.63 (SE 1.42); p < 0.005). There were a total of 295 referrals to the fracture clinic for the same period in 2019 with a further 44 emergency admissions. There was a statistically significant difference in the weekly referrals after being triaged by the VFC (mean 59 (SE 5.15) vs mean 21 (SE 2.17); p < 0.001). Conclusion. The use of an electronic referral pathway to deliver a point of care virtual fracture clinic allowed for efficient use of scarce resources and definitive management plan delivery in a safe manner. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:293–301

Introduction. There is widespread variation in the management of rare orthopaedic disease, in a large part owing to uncertainty. No individual surgeon or hospital is typically equipped to amass sufficient numbers of cases to draw robust conclusions from the information available to them. The programme of research will establish the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study; a nationwide reporting structure for rare disease in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. The BOSS Study is a series of nationwide observational cohort studies of pre-specified orthopaedic disease. All relevant hospitals treating the disease are invited to contribute anonymised case details. Data will be collected digitally through REDCap, with an additional bespoke software solution used to regularly confirm case ascertainment, prompt follow-up reminders and identify potential missing cases from external sources of information (i.e. national administrative data). With their consent, patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymised case data with patient reported outcomes. The study will primarily seek to calculate the incidence of the rare diseases under investigation, with 95% confidence intervals. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the case mix, treatment variations and outcomes. Inferential statistical analysis may be used to analyze associations between presentation factors and outcomes. Types of analyses will be contingent on the disease under investigation. Discussion. This study builds upon other national rare disease supporting structures, particularly those in obstetrics and paediatric surgery. It is particularly focused on addressing the evidence base for quality and safety of surgery, and the design is influenced by the specifications of the IDEAL collaboration for the development of surgical research

Aim. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. Methods. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections. Results. There is a paucity of high quality evidence surrounding COVID-19. This review collates evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks to put forward recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key findings have been summarized and interpreted for application to the orthopaedic operative setting. Conclusion. For COVID-19 positive patients, minimum suggested PPE includes N95 respirator, goggles, face shield, gown, double gloves, and surgical balaclava. Space suits not advised. Be trained in the correct technique of donning and doffing PPE. Use negative pressure theatres if available. Minimize aerosolization and its effects (smoke evacuation and no pulse lavage). Minimize further unnecessary patient-staff contact (dissolvable sutures, clear dressings, split casts)

Aims. The primary aim of the survey was to map the current provision of simulation training within UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) specialist training programmes to inform future design of a simulation based-curriculum. The secondary aims were to characterize; the types of simulation offered to trainees by stage of training, the sources of funding for simulation, the barriers to providing simulation in training, and to measure current research activity assessing the educational impact of simulation. Methods. The development of the survey was a collaborative effort between the authors and the British Orthopaedic Association Simulation Group. The survey items were embedded in the Performance and Opportunity Dashboard, which annually audits quality in training across several domains on behalf of the Speciality Advisory Committee (SAC). The survey was sent via email to the 30 training programme directors in March 2019. Data were retrieved and analyzed at the Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Results. Overall, 28 of 30 programme directors completed the survey (93%). 82% of programmes had access to high-fidelity simulation facilities such as cadaveric laboratories. More than half (54%) had access to a non-technical skills simulation training. Less than half (43%) received centralized funding for simulation, a third relied on local funding such as the departmental budget, and there was a heavy reliance on industry sponsorship to partly or wholly fund simulation training (64%). Provision was higher in the mid-stages (ST3-5) compared to late-stages (ST6-8) of training, and was formally timetabled in 68% of prostgrammes. There was no assessment of the impact of simulation training using objective behavioural measures or real-world clinical outcomes. Conclusion. There is currently widespread, but variable, provision of simulation in T&O training in the UK and RoI, which is likely to expand further with the new curriculum. It is important that research activity into the impact of simulation training continues, to develop an evidence base to support investment in facilities and provision

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