Research into COVID-19 has been rapid in response to the dynamic global situation, which has resulted in heterogeneity of methodology and the communication of information. Adherence to reporting standards would improve the quality of evidence presented in future studies, and may ensure that findings could be interpreted in the context of the wider literature. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a dynamic situation, requiring continued assessment of the disease incidence and monitoring for the emergence of viral variants and their transmissibility, virulence, and susceptibility to vaccine-induced immunity. More work is needed to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection on patients who sustain a hip fracture. The International Multicentre Project Auditing COVID-19 in Trauma & Orthopaedics (IMPACT) formed the largest multicentre collaborative audit conducted in orthopaedics in order to provide an emergency response to a global pandemic, but this was in the context of many vital established audit services being disrupted at an early stage, and it is crucial that these resources are protected during future health crises. Rapid data-sharing between regions should be developed, with wider adoption of the revised 2022 Fragility Fracture Network Minimum Common Data Set for Hip Fracture Audit, and a pragmatic approach to information governance processes in order to facilitate cooperation and meta-audit. This editorial aims to: 1) identify issues related to COVID-19 that require further research; 2) suggest reporting standards for studies of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; 3) consider the requirement of new risk scores for hip fracture patients; and 4) present the lessons learned from IMPACT in order to inform future collaborative studies. Cite this article:
The aims of this meta-analysis were to assess: 1) the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hip fracture patients; 2) the associated mortality rate and risk associated with COVID-19; 3) the patient demographics associated with COVID-19; 4) time of diagnosis; and 5) length of follow-up after diagnosis of COVID-19. Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Search terms included “hip”, “fracture”, and “COVID-19”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical articles reporting the mortality rate associated with COVID-19 in hip fracture patients. In total, 53 articles were identified and following full text screening 28 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this study was to compare the thickness of the hip capsule in patients with surgical hip disease, either with cam-femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) or non-FAI hip pathology, with that of asymptomatic control hips. A total of 56 hips in 55 patients underwent a 3Tesla MRI of the hip. These included 40 patients with 41 hips with arthroscopically proven hip disease (16 with cam-FAI; nine men, seven women; mean age 39 years, 22 to 58) and 25 with non-FAI chondrolabral pathology (four men, 21 women; mean age 40 years, 18 to 63) as well as 15 asymptomatic volunteers, whose hips served as controls (ten men, five women; mean age 62 years, 33 to 77). The maximal capsule thickness was measured anteriorly and superiorly, and compared within and between the three groups with a gender subanalysis using student’s Objectives
Methods
“Virtual fracture clinics” have been reported as a safe and effective alternative to the traditional fracture clinic. Robust protocols are used to identify cases that do not require further review, with the remainder triaged to the most appropriate subspecialist at the optimum time for review. The objective of this study was to perform a “top-down” analysis of the cost effectiveness of this virtual fracture clinic pathway. National Health Service financial returns relating to our institution were examined for the time period 2009 to 2014 which spanned the service redesign.Objectives
Methods
Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone
disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for
more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision
to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant
and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall
survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence
of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and
is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society
(BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents
‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed
to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again
champion the cause of patients with MBD. A series of short cases highlight common errors frequently being
made in managing patients with MBD despite the availability of guidelines.Objectives
Methods
