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 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

Aims. COVID-19 has compounded a growing waiting list problem, with over 4.5 million patients now waiting for planned elective care in the UK. Views of patients on waiting lists are rarely considered in prioritization. Our primary aim was to understand how to support patients on waiting lists by hearing their experiences, concerns, and expectations. The secondary aim was to capture objective change in disability and coping mechanisms. Methods. A minimum representative sample of 824 patients was required for quantitative analysis to provide a 3% margin of error. Sampling was stratified by body region (upper/lower limb, spine) and duration on the waiting list. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of elective orthopaedic waiting list patients with their planned intervention paused due to COVID-19. Analyzed parameters included baseline health, change in physical/mental health status, challenges and coping strategies, preferences/concerns regarding treatment, and objective quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item scale (GAD-2)). Qualitative analysis was performed via the Normalization Process Theory. Results. A total of 888 patients responded. Better health, pain, and mood scores were reported by upper limb patients. The longest waiters reported better health but poorer mood and anxiety scores. Overall, 82% had tried self-help measures to ease symptoms; 94% wished to proceed with their intervention; and 21% were prepared to tolerate deferral. Qualitative analysis highlighted the overall patient mood to be represented by the terms ‘understandable’, ‘frustrated’, ‘pain’, ‘disappointed’, and ‘not happy/depressed’. COVID-19-mandated health and safety measures and technology solutions were felt to be implemented well. However, patients struggled with access to doctors and pain management, quality of life (physical and psychosocial) deterioration, and delay updates. Conclusion. This is the largest study to hear the views of this ‘hidden’ cohort. Our findings are widely relevant to ensure provision of better ongoing support and communication, mostly within the constraints of current resources. In response, we developed a reproducible local action plan to address highlighted issues. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):583–593

Aims

As the world continues to fight successive waves of COVID-19 variants, we have seen worldwide infections surpass 100 million. London, UK, has been severely affected throughout the pandemic, and the resulting impact on the NHS has been profound. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on theatre productivity across London’s four major trauma centres (MTCs), and to assess how the changes to normal protocols and working patterns impacted trauma theatre efficiency.

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.

During the pandemic of COVID-19, some patients with COVID-19 may need emergency surgeries. As spine surgeons, it is our responsibility to ensure appropriate treatment to the patients with COVID-19 and spinal diseases. A protocol for spinal surgery and related management on patients with COVID-19 has been reviewed. Patient preparation for emergency surgeries, indications, and contraindications of emergency surgeries, operating room preparation, infection control precautions and personal protective equipments (PPE), anesthesia management, intraoperative procedures, postoperative management, medical waste disposal, and surveillance of healthcare workers were reviewed. It should be safe for surgeons with PPE of protection level 2 to perform spinal surgeries on patients with COVID-19. Standardized and careful surgical procedures should be necessary to reduce the exposure to COVID-19.

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. Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care. Methods. Questionnaires were sent to orthopaedic waiting list patients at the start of the UK’s first COVID-19 lockdown to capture key quantitative and qualitative aspects of patients’ health. A total of 888 respondents were divided into quintiles, with sampling stratified based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD); level 1 represented the ‘most deprived’ cohort and level 5 the ‘least deprived’. Results. The least deprived cohort were older (mean 65.95 years (SD 13.33)) than the most deprived (mean 59.48 years (SD 13.85)). Mean symptom duration was lower in the least deprived areas (68.59 months (SD 112.26)) compared to the most deprived (85.85 months (SD 122.50)). Mean pain visual analogue scores (VAS) were poorer in the most compared to the least deprived cohort (7.11 (SD 2.01) vs 5.99 (SD 2.57)), with mean mood scores also poorer (6.06 (SD 2.65) vs 4.71 (SD 2.78)). The most deprived areas exhibited lower mean quality of life (QoL) scores than the least (0.37 (SD 0.30) vs 0.53 (SD 0.31)). QoL findings correlated with health VAS and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD2) scores, with the most deprived areas experiencing poorer health (health VAS 50.82 (SD 26.42) vs 57.29 (SD 24.19); GAD2: 2.94 (SD 2.35) vs 1.88 (SD 2.07)). Least-deprived patients had the highest self-reported activity levels and lowest sedentary cohort, with the converse true for patients from the most deprived areas. Conclusion. The most deprived patients experience poorer physical and mental health, with this most adversely impacted by lengthy waiting list delays. Interventions to address inequalities should focus on prioritizing the most deprived. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):777–785

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. It is well described that patients with bone and joint infections (BJIs) commonly experience significant functional impairment and disability. Published literature is lacking on the impact of BJIs on mental health. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the impact on mental health in patients with BJIs. Methods. The AO Trauma Infection Registry is a prospective multinational registry. In total, 229 adult patients with long-bone BJI were enrolled between 1 November 2012 and 31 August 2017 in 18 centres from ten countries. Clinical outcome data, demographic data, and details on infections and treatments were collected. Patient-reported outcomes using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36), Parker Mobility Score, and Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living were assessed at one, six, and 12 months. The SF-36 mental component subscales were analyzed and correlated with infection characteristics and clinical outcome. Results. The SF-36 physical component summary mean at baseline was 30.9 (95% CI 29.7 to 32.0). At one month, it was unchanged (30.5; 95% CI 29.5 to 31.5; p = 0.447); it had improved statistically significantly at six months (35.5; 95% CI 34.2 to 36.7; p < 0.001) and at 12 months (37.9; 95% CI 36.4 to 39.3; p < 0.001). The SF-36 mental component summary mean at baseline was 42.5 (95% CI 40.8 to 44.2). At one month, it was unchanged (43.1; 95% CI 41.4 to 44.8; p = 0.458); it had improved statistically significantly at six months (47.1; 95% CI 45.4 to 48.7; p < 0.001) and at 12 months (46.7; 95% CI 45.0 to 48.5; p < 0.001). All mental subscales had improved by the end of the study, but mental health status remained compromised in comparison with the average USA population. Conclusion. BJIs considerably impact HRQoL, particularly mental health. Patients suffering from BJIs reported considerable limitations in their daily and social activities due to psychological problems. Impaired mental health may be explained by the chronic nature of BJIs, and therefore the mental wellbeing of these patients should be monitored closely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):721–728

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile and level of interest in the use, acceptability, safety, and effectiveness of virtual outpatient consultations and telemedicine. These models of care are not new but a number of challenges have so far hindered widespread take-up and endorsement of these ways of working. With the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remote and virtual working and consultation have become the default. This paper explores our experience of and learning from virtual and remote consultation and questions how this experience can be retained and developed for the future. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):301–304

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. 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 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 ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted and delayed medical and surgical examinations where attendance is required in person. Our article aims to outline the validity of online assessment, the range of benefits to both candidate and assessor, and the challenges to its implementation. In addition, we propose pragmatic suggestions for its introduction into medical assessment. Methods. We reviewed the literature concerning the present status of online medical and surgical assessment to establish the perceived benefits, limitations, and potential problems with this method of assessment. Results. Global experience with online, remote virtual examination has been largely successful with many benefits conferred to the trainee, and both an economic and logistical advantage conferred to the assessor or organization. Advances in online examination software and remote proctoring are overcoming practical caveats including candidate authentication, cheating prevention, cybersecurity, and IT failure. Conclusion. Virtual assessment provides benefits to both trainee and assessor in medical and surgical examinations and may also result in cost savings. Virtual assessment is likely to be increasingly used in the post-COVID world and we present recommendations for the continued adoption of virtual examination. It is, however, currently unable to completely replace clinical assessment of trainees. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):111–118

Aims. The use of technology to assess balance and alignment during total knee surgery can provide an overload of numerical data to the surgeon. Meanwhile, this quantification holds the potential to clarify and guide the surgeon through the surgical decision process when selecting the appropriate bone recut or soft tissue adjustment when balancing a total knee. Therefore, this paper evaluates the potential of deploying supervised machine learning (ML) models to select a surgical correction based on patient-specific intra-operative assessments. Methods. Based on a clinical series of 479 primary total knees and 1,305 associated surgical decisions, various ML models were developed. These models identified the indicated surgical decision based on available, intra-operative alignment, and tibiofemoral load data. Results. With an associated area under the receiver-operator curve ranging between 0.75 and 0.98, the optimized ML models resulted in good to excellent predictions. The best performing model used a random forest approach while considering both alignment and intra-articular load readings. Conclusion. The presented model has the potential to make experience available to surgeons adopting new technology, bringing expert opinion in their operating theatre, but also provides insight in the surgical decision process. More specifically, these promising outcomes indicated the relevance of considering the overall limb alignment in the coronal and sagittal plane to identify the appropriate surgical decision

Aims

The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons.

Aims

The purpose of this survey study was to examine the demographic and lifestyle factors of women currently in orthopaedic surgery.

Aims. Elective operating was halted during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase the capacity to provide care to an unprecedented volume of critically unwell patients. During the pandemic, the orthopaedic department at the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board restructured the trauma service, relocating semi-urgent ambulatory trauma operating to the isolated clean elective centre (St. Woolos’ Hospital) from the main hospital receiving COVID-19 patients (Royal Gwent Hospital). This study presents our experience of providing semi-urgent trauma care in a COVID-19-free surgical unit as a safe way to treat trauma patients during the pandemic and a potential model for restarting an elective orthopaedic service. Methods. All patients undergoing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic at the orthopaedic surgical unit (OSU) in St. Woolos’ Hospital from 23 March 2020 to 24 April 2020 were included. All patients that were operated on had a telephone follow-up two weeks after surgery to assess if they had experienced COVID-19 symptoms or had been tested for COVID-19. The nature of admission, operative details, and patient demographics were obtained from the health board’s electronic record. Staff were assessed for sickness, self-isolation, and COVID-19 status. Results. A total of 58 surgical procedures were undertaken at the OSU during the study period; 93% (n = 54) of patients completed the telephone follow-up. Open reduction and internal fixation of ankle and wrist fractures were the most common procedures. None of the patients nor members of their households had developed symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 or required testing. No staff members reported sick days or were advised by occupational health to undergo viral testing. Conclusion. This study provides optimism that orthopaedic patients planned for surgery can be protected from COVID-19 nosocomial transmission at separate COVID-19-free sites. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:302–308

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