Aims. Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. Methods. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions. Results. A pre-meeting questionnaire was conducted. The one-day consensus meeting, including patient representatives, identified three agreed terms only to be used in defining the weightbearing status of the patient: 1) non-weightbearing; 2) limited weightbearing; and 3) unrestricted weightbearing. Conclusion. This study represents the first and only exercise in standardizing rehabilitation terminology in orthopaedics, as agreed by all major stakeholders in the patient pathway and the patients themselves. The standardization of language allows for higher-quality and more accurate research to be conducted, and is one small part of the bigger picture in increasing the mobility of patients after orthopaedic injury or surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):1016–1020

Aims

The increase in prescription opioid misuse and dependence is now a public health crisis in the UK. It is recognized as a whole-person problem that involves both the medical and the psychosocial needs of patients. Analyzing aspects of pathophysiology, emotional health, and social wellbeing associated with persistent opioid use after injury may inform safe and effective alleviation of pain while minimizing risk of misuse or dependence. Our objectives were to investigate patient factors associated with opioid use two to four weeks and six to nine months after an upper limb fracture.

Aims. The UK government declared a national lockdown on 23 March 2020 to reduce transmission of COVID-19. This study aims to identify the effect of lockdown on the rates, types, mechanisms, and mortality of musculoskeletal trauma across Scotland. Methods. Data for all musculoskeletal trauma requiring operative treatment were collected prospectively from five key orthopaedic units across Scotland during lockdown (23 March 2020 to 28 May 2020). This was compared with data for the same timeframe in 2019 and 2018. Data collected included all cases requiring surgery, injury type, mechanism of injury, and inpatient mortality. Results. A total of 1,315 patients received operative treatment from 23 March 2020 to 28 May 2020 compared with 1,791 in 2019 and 1,719 in 2018. The numbers of all injury types decreased, but the relative frequency of hip fractures increased (36.3% in 2020 vs 30.2% in 2019, p < 0.0001 and 30.7% in 2018, p < 0.0001). Significant increases were seen in the proportion of DIY-related injuries (3.1% in 2020 vs 1.7% in 2019, p = 0.012 and 1.6% in 2018, p < 0.005) and injuries caused by falls (65.6% in 2020 vs 62.6% in 2019, p = 0.082 and 61.9% in 2018, p = 0.047). Significant decreases were seen in the proportion of road traffic collisions (2.6% in 2020 vs 5.4% in 2019, p < 0.0001 and 4.2% in 2018, p = 0.016), occupational injuries (1.8% in 2020 vs 3.0% in 2019, p = 0.025 and 2.3% in 2018, p = 0.012) and infections (6.8% in 2020 vs 7.8% in 2019, p = 0.268 and 10.3% in 2018, p < 0.012). Cycling injuries increased (78 in 2020 vs 64 in 2019 vs 42 in 2018). A significant increase in the proportion of self-harm injuries was seen (1.7% in 2020 vs 1.1% in 2019, p = 0.185 and 0.5% in 2018, p < 0.0001). Mortality of trauma patients was significantly higher in 2020 (5.0%) than in 2019 (2.8%, p = 0.002) and 2018 (1.8%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion. The UK COVID-19 lockdown has resulted in a marked reduction in musculoskeletal trauma patients undergoing surgery in Scotland. There have been significant changes in types and mechanisms of injury and, concerningly, mortality of trauma patients has risen significantly. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:541–548

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.

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

Aims

Europe has found itself at the epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic. Naturally, this has placed added strain onto healthcare systems internationally. It was feared that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic could overrun the Irish healthcare system. As such, the Irish government opted to introduce a national lockdown on the 27 March 2020 in an attempt to stem the flow of admissions to hospitals. Similar lockdowns in the UK and New Zealand have resulted in reduced emergency department presentations and trauma admissions. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of the national lockdown on trauma presentations to a model-3 hospital in Dublin, Ireland.

Aims

Elective surgery has been severely curtailed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little evidence to guide surgeons in assessing what processes should be put in place to restart elective surgery safely in a time of endemic COVID-19 in the community.

Aims. This study aims to define the epidemiology of trauma presenting to a single centre providing all orthopaedic trauma care for a population of ∼ 900,000 over the first 40 days of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that presenting over the same period one year earlier. The secondary aim was to compare this with population mobility data obtained from Google. Methods. A cross-sectional study of consecutive adult (> 13 years) patients with musculoskeletal trauma referred as either in-patients or out-patients over a 40-day period beginning on 5 March 2020, the date of the first reported UK COVID-19 death, was performed. This time period encompassed social distancing measures. This group was compared to a group of patients referred over the same calendar period in 2019 and to publicly available mobility data from Google. Results. Orthopaedic trauma referrals reduced by 42% (1,056 compared to 1,820) during the study period, and by 58% (405 compared to 967) following national lockdown. Outpatient referrals reduced by 44%, and inpatient referrals by 36%, and the number of surgeries performed by 36%. The regional incidence of traumatic injury fell from 5.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.79 to 5.35) to 2.94 (95% CI 2.52 to 3.32) per 100,000 population per day. Significant reductions were seen in injuries related to sports and alcohol consumption. No admissions occurred relating to major trauma (Injury Severity Score > 16) or violence against the person. Changes in population mobility and trauma volume from baseline correlated significantly (Pearson’s correlation 0.749, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85, p < 0.001). However, admissions related to fragility fractures remained unchanged compared to the 2019 baseline. Conclusion. The profound changes in social behaviour and mobility during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic have directly correlated with a significant decrease in orthopaedic trauma referrals, but fragility fractures remained unaffected and provision for these patients should be maintained. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:182–189

The ability of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to differentiate in vitro into chondrocytes, osteocytes and myocytes holds great promise for tissue engineering. Skeletal defects are emerging as key targets for treatment using MSCs due to the high responsiveness of bone to interventions in animal models. Interest in MSCs has further expanded in recognition of their ability to release growth factors and to adjust immune responses.

Despite their increasing application in clinical trials, the origin and role of MSCs in the development, repair and regeneration of organs have remained unclear. Until recently, MSCs could only be isolated in a process that requires culture in a laboratory; these cells were being used for tissue engineering without understanding their native location and function. MSCs isolated in this indirect way have been used in clinical trials and remain the reference standard cellular substrate for musculoskeletal engineering. The therapeutic use of autologous MSCs is currently limited by the need for ex vivo expansion and by heterogeneity within MSC preparations. The recent discovery that the walls of blood vessels harbour native precursors of MSCs has led to their prospective identification and isolation. MSCs may therefore now be purified from dispensable tissues such as lipo-aspirate and returned for clinical use in sufficient quantity, negating the requirement for ex vivo expansion and a second surgical procedure.

In this annotation we provide an update on the recent developments in the understanding of the identity of MSCs within tissues and outline how this may affect their use in orthopaedic surgery in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:291–8.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons.

Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications.

A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left in situ.