Aims. Distraction osteogenesis with intramedullary lengthening devices has undergone rapid development in the past decade with implant enhancement. In this first single-centre matched-pair analysis we focus on the comparison of treatment with the PRECICE and STRYDE intramedullary lengthening devices and aim to clarify any clinical and radiological differences. Methods. A single-centre 2:1 matched-pair retrospective analysis of 42 patients treated with the STRYDE and 82 patients treated with the PRECICE nail between May 2013 and November 2020 was conducted. Clinical and lengthening parameters were compared while focusing radiological assessment on osseous alterations related to the nail’s telescopic junction and locking bolts at four different stages. Results. Osteolysis next to the telescopic junction was observed in 31/48 segments (65%) lengthened with the STRYDE nail before implant removal compared to 1/91 segment (1%) in the PRECICE cohort. In the STRYDE cohort, osteolysis initially increased, but decreased or resolved in almost all lengthened segments (86%) after implant removal. Implant failure was observed in 9/48 STRYDE (19%) and in 8/92 PRECICE nails (9%). Breakage of the distal locking bolts was found in 5/48 STRYDE nails (10%) compared to none in the PRECICE cohort. Treatment-associated pain was generally recorded as mild and found in 30/48 patients (63%) and 39/92 (42%) in the STRYDE and PRECICE cohorts, respectively. Temporary range of motion (ROM) limitations under distraction were registered in 17/48 (35%) segments treated with the STRYDE and 35/92 segments (38%) treated with the PRECICE nail. Conclusion. Osteolysis and periosteal reaction, implant breakage, and pain during lengthening and consolidation is more likely in patients treated with the STRYDE nail compared to the PRECICE nail. Temporary ROM limitations during lengthening occurred independent of the applied device. Implant-related osseous alterations seem to remodel after implant removal. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):88–96

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. 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. Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach. Methods. A comprehensive electronic search and quantitative data analysis from eligible studies were performed. Inclusion criteria were adults with a limb amputation managed with a one- or two-stage osseointegration procedure with follow-up reporting of complications. Results. A total of 19 studies were included: four one-stage, 14 two-stage, and one article with both one- and two-stage groups. Superficial infection was the most common complication (one-stage: 38% vs two-stage: 52%). There was a notable difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis (one-stage: nil vs two-stage: 10%) and implant failure (one-stage: 1% vs two-stage: 9%). Fracture incidence was equivocal (one-stage: 13% vs two-stage: 12%), and comparison of soft-tissue, stoma, and mechanical related complications was not possible. Conclusion. This review suggests that the one-stage approach is favourable compared to the two-stage, because the incidence of complications was slightly lower in the one-stage cohort, with a pertinent difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):539–550

Aims. The aetiologies of common degenerative spine, hip, and knee pathologies are still not completely understood. Mechanical theories have suggested that those diseases are related to sagittal pelvic morphology and spinopelvic-femoral dynamics. The link between the most widely used parameter for sagittal pelvic morphology, pelvic incidence (PI), and the onset of degenerative lumbar, hip, and knee pathologies has not been studied in a large-scale setting. Methods. A total of 421 patients from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) database, a population-based observational cohort, with hip and knee complaints < 6 months, aged between 45 and 65 years old, and with lateral lumbar, hip, and knee radiographs available, were included. Sagittal spinopelvic parameters and pathologies (spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease (DDD)) were measured at eight-year follow-up and characteristics of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) at baseline and eight-year follow-up. Epidemiology of the degenerative disorders and clinical outcome scores (hip and knee pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) were compared between low PI (< 50°), normal PI (50° to 60°), and high PI (> 60°) using generalized estimating equations. Results. Demographic details were not different between the different PI groups. L4 to L5 and L5 to S1 spondylolisthesis were more frequently present in subjects with high PI compared to low PI (L4 to L5, OR 3.717; p = 0.024 vs L5 to S1 OR 7.751; p = 0.001). L5 to S1 DDD occurred more in patients with low PI compared to high PI (OR 1.889; p = 0.010), whereas there were no differences in L4 to L5 DDD among individuals with a different PI. The incidence of hip OA was higher in participants with low PI compared to normal (OR 1.262; p = 0.414) or high PI (OR 1.337; p = 0.274), but not statistically different. The incidence of knee OA was higher in individuals with a high PI compared to low PI (OR 1.620; p = 0.034). Conclusion. High PI is a risk factor for development of spondylolisthesis and knee OA. Low pelvic incidence is related to DDD, and may be linked to OA of the hip. Level of Evidence: 1b. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1261–1267

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 aim of this study was to determine the impact of the severity of anaemia on postoperative complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. All patients who underwent primary TKA or THA between January 2012 and December 2017 were identified and stratified based upon hematocrit level. In this analysis, we defined anaemia as packed cell volume (Hct) < 36% for women and < 39% for men, and further stratified anaemia as mild anaemia (Hct 33% to 36% for women, Hct 33% to 39% for men), and moderate to severe (Hct < 33% for both men and women). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the incidence of multiple adverse events within 30 days of arthroplasty. Results. Following adjustment, patients in the THA cohort with moderate to severe anaemia had an increased odds of 6.194 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.679 to 6.756; p < 0.001) for developing any postoperative complication. Following adjustment, patients in the TKA cohort with moderate to severe anaemia had an increased odds of 5.186 (95% CI 4.811 to 5.590; p < 0.001) for developing any postoperative complication. Among both cohorts, as severity increased, there was an increased risk of postoperative complications. Conclusion. Preoperative anaemia is a risk factor for complications following primary arthroplasty. There is a significant relationship between the severity of anaemia and the odds of postoperative complications. Patients who had moderate to severe anaemia were at increased risk of developing postoperative complications relative to patients with mild anaemia. When considering elective primary THA or TKA in a moderately or severely anaemic patient, surgeons should strongly consider correcting anaemia prior to surgery if possible. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):485–494

Aims. Patients undergoing limb reconstruction surgery often face a challenging and lengthy process to complete their treatment journey. The majority of existing outcome measures do not adequately capture the patient-reported outcomes relevant to this patient group in a single measure. Following a previous systematic review, the Stanmore Limb Reconstruction Score (SLRS) was designed with the intent to address this need for an effective instrument to measure patient-reported outcomes in limb reconstruction patients. We aim to assess the face validity of this score in a pilot study. Methods. The SLRS was designed following structured interviews with several groups including patients who have undergone limb reconstruction surgery, limb reconstruction surgeons, specialist nurses, and physiotherapists. This has subsequently undergone further adjustment for language and clarity. The score was then trialled on ten patients who had undergone limb reconstruction surgery, with subsequent structured questioning to understand the perceived suitability of the score. Results. Ten patients completed the score and the subsequent structured interview. Considering the tool as a whole, 100% of respondents felt the score to be comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive regarding the areas that were important to a patient undergoing limb reconstruction surgery. For individual questions, on a five-point Likert scale, importance/relevance was reported as a mean of 4.78 (4.3 to 5.0), with ability to understand rated as 4.92 (4.7 to 5.0) suggesting high levels of relevance and comprehension. Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level was calculated as 5.2 (10 to 11 years old). Conclusion. The current SLRS has been shown to have acceptable scores from a patient sample regarding relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. This suggests face validity, however further testing required and is ongoing in a larger cohort of patients to determine the reliability, responsiveness, precision, and criterion validity of the score in this patient group. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):705–709

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. 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. 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. Methods. We used data from a stand-alone hospital admitting and operating on 91 trauma patients. All patients were screened on admission and 100% of patients have been followed-up after discharge to assess outcome. Results. Overall, 87 (96%) patients remained symptom-free and recovered well following surgery. Four (4%) patients developed symptoms of COVID-19, with polymerase chain reaction ribonucleiuc acid (PCR-RNA) testing confirming infection. Conclusion. Based on our findings, we propose that if careful cohorting and screening is carried out in a stand-alone cold operating site, it is reasonable to resume elective operating, in a time of endemic but low community prevalence of SAR-Cov2. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:229–235

Aims. To describe the incidence of adverse clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection following corticosteroid injections (CSI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. To describe the incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, positive SARS-COV2 IgG antibody testing or positive imaging findings following CSI at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A retrospective observational study was undertaken of consecutive patients who had CSI in our local hospitals between 1 February and 30June 2020. Electronic patient medical records (EPR) and radiology information system (RIS) database were reviewed. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, SARS-COV2 IgG antibody testing, radiological investigations, patient management, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Lung findings were categorized according to the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guidelines. Reference was made to the incidence of lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in our region. Results. Overall, 1,656 lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases were identified in our upper tier local authority (UTLA), a rate of 306.6 per 100,000, as of 30June 2020. A total of 504 CSI injections were performed on 443 patients between 1 February and 30June 2020. A total of 11 RT-PCR tests were performed on nine patients (2% of those who had CSI), all of which were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and five patients (1.1%) received an SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody test, of which 2 (0.5%) were positive consistent with prior COVID-19 infection, however both patients were asymptomatic. Seven patients (1.6%) had radiological investigations for respiratory symptoms. One patient with indeterminate ground glass change was identified. Conclusion. The incidence of positive COVID-19 infection following corticosteroid injections was very low in our cohort and no adverse clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection following CSI were identified. Our findings are consistent with CSI likely being low risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this small observational study are supportive of the current multi-society guidelines regarding the judicious use of CSI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:605–611

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

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

Aims. Hip fracture patients are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness, and admission into hospital puts them at further risk. We implemented a two-site orthopaedic trauma service, with ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’ hubs, to deliver urgent and infection-controlled trauma care for hip fracture patients, while increasing bed capacity for medical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A vacated private elective surgical centre was repurposed to facilitate a two-site, ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’, hip fracture service. Patients were screened for COVID-19 infection and either kept at our ‘COVID’ site or transferred to our ‘COVID-free’ site. We collected data for 30 days on patient demographics, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores (NHFS), time to surgery, COVID-19 status, mortality, and length of stay (LOS). Results. In all, 47 hip fracture patients presented to our service: 12 were admitted to the ‘COVID’ site and 35 to the ‘COVID-free’ site. The ‘COVID’ site cohort were older (mean 86.8 vs 78.5 years, p = 0.0427) and with poorer CFS (p = 0.0147) and NHFS (p = 0.0023) scores. At the ‘COVID-free’ site, mean time to surgery was less (29.8 vs 52.8 hours, p = 0.0146), and mean LOS seemed shorter (8.7 vs 12.6 days, p = 0.0592). No patients tested positive for COVID-19 infection while at the ‘COVID-free’ site. We redirected 74% of our admissions from the base ‘COVID’ site and created 304 inpatient days’ capacity for medical COVID patients. Conclusion. Acquisition of unused elective orthopaedic capacity from the private sector facilitated a two-site trauma service. Patients were treated expeditiously, while successfully achieving strict infection control. We achieved significant gains in medical bed capacity in response to the COVID-19 demand. The authors propose the repurposing of unused elective operating facilities for a two-site ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’ model as a safe and effective way of managing hip fracture patients during the pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:190–197

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the risk of postoperative complications in COVID-19-positive patients undergoing common orthopaedic procedures.

Aims

As an alternative to external fixators, intramedullary lengthening nails (ILNs) can be employed for distraction osteogenesis. While previous studies have demonstrated that typical complications of external devices, such as soft-tissue tethering, and pin site infection can be avoided with ILNs, there is a lack of studies that exclusively investigated tibial distraction osteogenesis with motorized ILNs inserted via an antegrade approach.

Aims. To establish if COVID-19 has worsened outcomes in patients with AO 31 A or B type hip fractures. Methods. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed for a five-week period from 20 March 2020 and the same time period in 2019. The primary outcome was mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 infection, perioperative pulmonary complications, time to theatre, type of anaesthesia, operation, grade of surgeon, fracture type, postoperative intensive care admission, venous thromboembolism, dislocation, infection rates, and length of stay. Results. In all, 76 patients with hip fractures were identified in each group. All patients had 30-day follow-up. There was no difference in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification or residence at time of injury. However, three in each group were not fit for surgery. No significant difference was found in 30-day mortality; ten patients (13%) in 2019 and 11 patients (14%) in 2020 (p = 0.341). In the 2020 cohort, ten patients tested positive for COVID-19, two (20%) of whom died. There was no significant increase in postoperative pulmonary complications. Median time to theatre was 20 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 16 to 25) in 2019 versus 23 hours (IQR 18 to 30) in 2020 (p = 0.130). Regional anaesthesia increased from 24 (33%) cases in 2019 to 46 (63%) cases in 2020, but ten (14%) required conversion to general anaesthesia. In both groups, 53 (70%) operations were done by trainees. Hemiarthroplasty for 31 B type fractures was the most common operation. No significant difference was found for intensive care admission or 30-day venous thromboembolism, dislocation or infection, or length of stay. Conclusion. Little information exists on mortality and complications after hip fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of writing, no other study of outcomes in the UK has been published. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:415–419

Aims

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

Aims

Chronic osteomyelitis (COM) of the lower limb in adults can be surgically managed by either limb reconstruction or amputation. This scoping review aims to map the outcomes used in studies surgically managing COM in order to aid future development of a core outcome set.