The June 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: The estimated lifetime risk of revision after primary knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Should high-risk patients seek out care from high-volume surgeons?; Stability and fracture rates in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties; Rethinking antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures post-arthroplasty; Evaluating DAIR: a viable alternative for acute periprosthetic joint infection; The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee; Patient health-related quality of life deteriorates significantly while waiting six to 12 months for total hip or knee arthroplasty; The importance of looking for diversity in knee implants

The February 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Total hip arthroplasty or internal fixation for hip fracture?; Significant deterioration in quality of life and increased frailty in patients waiting more than six months for total hip or knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional multicentre study; Long-term cognitive trajectory after total joint arthroplasty; Costal cartilage grafting for a large osteochondral lesion of the femoral head; Foley catheters not a problem in the short term; Revision hips still a mortality burden?; How to position implants with a robotic arm; Uncemented stems in hip fracture?

Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):843–849

Aims. This is a multicentre, prospective assessment of a proportion of the overall orthopaedic trauma caseload of the UK. It investigates theatre capacity, cancellations, and time to surgery in a group of hospitals that is representative of the wider population. It identifies barriers to effective practice and will inform system improvements. Methods. Data capture was by collaborative approach. Patients undergoing procedures from 22 August 2022 and operated on before 31 October 2022 were included. Arm one captured weekly caseload and theatre capacity. Arm two concerned patient and injury demographics, and time to surgery for specific injury groups. Results. Data was available from 90 hospitals across 86 data access groups (70 in England, two in Wales, ten in Scotland, and four in Northern Ireland). After exclusions, 709 weeks' of data on theatre capacity and 23,138 operations were analyzed. The average number of cases per operating session was 1.73. Only 5.8% of all theatre sessions were dedicated day surgery sessions, despite 29% of general trauma patients being eligible for such pathways. In addition, 12.3% of patients experienced at least one cancellation. Delays to surgery were longest in Northern Ireland and shortest in England and Scotland. There was marked variance across all fracture types. Open fractures and fragility hip fractures, influenced by guidelines and performance renumeration, had short waits, and varied least. In all, nine hospitals had 40 or more patients waiting for surgery every week, while seven had less than five. Conclusion. There is great variability in operative demand and list provision seen in this study of 90 UK hospitals. There is marked variation in nearly all injuries apart from those associated with performance monitoring. There is no evidence of local network level coordination of care for orthopaedic trauma patients. Day case operating and pathways of care are underused and are an important area for service improvement. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(6):463–471

Aims. The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery. Methods. Patients were randomly selected from elective orthopaedic waiting lists at three centres in the UK in April, June, August, and September 2020 and were contacted by telephone. Patients were asked whether they wanted to proceed or defer surgery. Patients who wished to defer were asked seven questions relating to potential barriers to proceeding with surgery and were asked whether there were measures/circumstances that would allow them to go forward with surgery. Results. There was a significant decline in the rate of deferral for surgery from April (n = 38/50, 76%), June (n = 68/233, 29%), to August (n = 6/50, 12%) and September (n = 5/100, 5%) (p < 0.001). Patients wishing to defer were older (68 years (SD 10.1) vs 65 (SD 11.9)), more likely to be female (65% (44/68) vs 53% (88/165)) and waiting for a knee arthroplasty (65% (44/68) vs 41% (67/165); p < 0.001). By September 2020, all patients that deferred in June at one centre had proceeded or wanted to proceed with surgery due to a perceived lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 perioperatively (68%, n = 15) or because their symptoms had progressed (32%, n = 7). The most common reason (n = 14/17, 82%) for patients deferring surgery in September was the perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 while as an inpatient. When asked what measures or circumstances would enable them to proceed with surgery, the most common (n = 7, 41%) response was reassurance of a COVID-19 free hospital. Conclusion. The rate of deferral fell to 5% by September, which was due to a lower perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 perioperatively or worsening of symptoms while waiting. The potential of a COVID-19-free hospital and communication of mortality risk may improve a patient’s willingness to go forward with surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:663–668

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

The February 2024 Oncology Roundup. 360. looks at: Does primary tumour resection improve survival for patients with sarcomas of the pelvis with metastasis at diagnosis?; Proximal femur replacements for an oncologic indication offer a durable endoprosthetic reconstruction option: a 40-year experience; The importance of awaiting biopsy results in solitary pathological proximal femoral fractures: do we need to biopsy solitary pathological fractures?; Effect of radiotherapy on local recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall survival in 1,200 extremity soft-tissue sarcoma patients; What to choose in bone tumour resections? Patient-specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation; Optimal timing of re-excision in synovial sarcoma patients: immediate intervention versus waiting for local recurrence; Survival differences of patients with resected extraskeletal osteosarcoma receiving two different (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy regimens; Solitary versus multiple bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton: should the surgical treatment be different?

Aims. The primary aim was to assess whether preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was associated with postoperative mortality following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess whether patient demographics/comorbidities and/or joint-specific function were associated with postoperative mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing THA (n = 717) and KA (n = 742) during a one-year period were identified retrospectively from an arthroplasty register. Patient demographics, comorbidities, Oxford score, and EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) were recorded preoperatively. Patients were followed up for a minimum of seven years and their mortality status was obtained. Cox regression analysis was used to adjust for confounding. Results. During the study period, 111 patients (15.5%) undergoing THA and 135 patients (18.2%) undergoing KA had died at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (7 to 8). When adjusting for confounding, the preoperative EQ-5D was associated with postoperative mortality, and for each 0.1 difference in the utility there was an associated change in mortality risk of 6.7% (p = 0.048) after THA, and 6.8% (p = 0.047) after KA. Comorbidities of connective tissue disease (p ≤ 0.026) and diabetes (p ≤ 0.028) were associated with mortality after THA, whereas MI (p ≤ 0.041), diabetes (p ≤ 0.009), and pain in other joints (p ≤ 0.050) were associated with mortality following KA. The preoperative Oxford score was associated with mortality, and for each one-point change in the score there was an associated change in mortality risk of 2.7% (p = 0.025) after THA and 4.3% (p = 0.003) after KA. Conclusion. Worse preoperative HRQoL and joint specific function were associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality. Both HRQoL and joint-specific function decline with longer waiting times to surgery for THA and KA and therefore may result in an increased postoperative mortality risk than would have been expected if surgery had been undertaken earlier. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):933–940

Aims. Shoulder arthroplasty is effective in the management of end-stage glenohumeral joint arthritis. However, it is major surgery and patients must balance multiple factors when considering the procedure. An understanding of patients’ decision-making processes may facilitate greater support of those considering shoulder arthroplasty and inform the outcomes of future research. Methods. Participants were recruited from waiting lists of three consultant upper limb surgeons across two NHS hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 participants who were awaiting elective shoulder arthroplasty. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Systematic coding was performed; initial codes were categorized and further developed into summary narratives through a process of discussion and refinement. Data collection and analyses continued until thematic saturation was reached. Results. Two overall categories emerged: the motivations to consider surgery, and the information participants used to inform their decision-making. Motivations were, broadly, the relief of pain and the opportunity to get on with life and regain independence. When participants’ symptoms and restrictions prevented them enjoying life to a sufficient extent, this provided the motivation to proceed with surgery. Younger participants tended to focus on maintaining employment and recreational activities, and older patients were eager to make the most of their remaining lifetime. Participants gathered information from a range of sources and were keen to optimize their recovery where possible. An important factor for participants was whether they trusted their surgeon and were prepared to delegate responsibility for elements of their care. Conclusion. Relief of pain and the opportunity to get on with life were the primary reasons to undergo shoulder arthroplasty. Participants highlighted the importance of the patient-surgeon relationship and the need for accurate information in an accessible format which is relevant to people of different ages and functional demands. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):543–549

Aims. The incidence of limb fractures in patients living with HIV (PLWH) is increasing. However, due to their immunodeficiency status, the operation and rehabilitation of these patients present unique challenges. Currently, it is urgent to establish a standardized perioperative rehabilitation plan based on the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of ERAS in the perioperative period of PLWH with limb fractures. Methods. A total of 120 PLWH with limb fractures, between January 2015 and December 2023, were included in this study. We established a multidisciplinary team to design and implement a standardized ERAS protocol. The demographic, surgical, clinical, and follow-up information of the patients were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Results. Compared with the control group, the ERAS group had a shorter operating time, hospital stay, preoperative waiting time, postoperative discharge time, less intraoperative blood loss, and higher albumin and haemoglobin on the first postoperative day. The time to removal of the urinary catheter/drainage tube was shortened, and the drainage volume was also significantly reduced in the ERAS group. There was no significant difference in the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores on postoperative return to the ward, but the ERAS group had lower scores on the first, second, and third postoperative days. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications, other than 10% more nausea and vomiting in the control group. The limb function scores at one-year follow-up were similar between the two groups, but time to radiological fracture union and time to return to physical work and sports were significantly reduced in the ERAS group. Conclusion. The implementation of a series of perioperative nursing measures based on the concept of ERAS in PLWH with limb fracture can significantly reduce the operating time and intraoperative blood loss, reduce the occurrence of postoperative pain and complications, and accelerate the improvement of the functional status of the affected limb in the early stage, which is worthy of applying in more medical institutions. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(11):647–658

The December 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Clavicle fractures: is the evidence changing practice?; Humeral shaft fractures, and another meta-analysis…let’s wait for the trials now!; Hemiarthroplasty or total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures…what does the registry say?; What to do with a first-time shoulder dislocation?; Deprivation indices and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; Prospective randomized clinical trial of arthroscopic repair versus debridement for partial subscapularis tears; Long-term follow-up following closed reduction and early movement for simple dislocation of the elbow; Sternoclavicular joint reconstruction for traumatic acute and chronic anterior and posterior instability

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Aims. The number of patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy has increased. In many countries, public hospitals have limited capacity. This has resulted in long waiting times for elective treatment and a need for supplementary private healthcare. It is uncertain whether the management of patients and the outcome of treatment are equivalent in public and private hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the management and patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy in public and private hospitals in Norway, and to assess whether the effectiveness of the treatment was equivalent. Methods. This was a comparative study using prospectively collected data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. A total of 4,750 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy and were followed for 12 months were included. Case-mix adjustment between those managed in public and private hospitals was performed using propensity score matching. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) between baseline and 12 months postoperatively. A mean difference in improvement of the NDI score between public and private hospitals of ≤ 15 points was considered equivalent. Secondary outcome measures were a numerical rating scale for neck and arm pain and the EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire. The duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and complications were also recorded. Results. The mean improvement from baseline to 12 months postoperatively of patients who underwent surgery in public and private hospitals was equivalent, both in the unmatched cohort (mean NDI difference between groups 3.9 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 5.6); p < 0.001) and in the matched cohort (4.0 points (95% CI 2.3 to 5.7); p < 0.001). Secondary outcomes showed similar results. The duration of surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly longer in public hospitals. Those treated in private hospitals reported significantly fewer complications in the unmatched cohort, but not in the matched cohort. Conclusion. The clinical effectiveness of surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy performed in public and private hospitals was equivalent 12 months after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):64–71

Aims. Echocardiography is commonly used in hip fracture patients to evaluate perioperative cardiac risk. However, echocardiography that delays surgical repair may be harmful. The objective of this study was to compare surgical wait times, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and healthcare costs for similar hip fracture patients evaluated with and without preoperative echocardiograms. Methods. A population-based, matched cohort study of all hip fracture patients (aged over 45 years) in Ontario, Canada between 2009 and 2014 was conducted. The primary exposure was preoperative echocardiography (occurring between hospital admission and surgery). Mortality rates, surgical wait times, postoperative LOS, and medical costs (expressed as 2013$ CAN) up to one year postoperatively were assessed after propensity-score matching. Results. A total of 2,354 of 42,230 (5.6%) eligible hip fracture patients received a preoperative echocardiogram during the study period. Echocardiography ordering practices varied among hospitals, ranging from 0% to 23.0% of hip fracture patients at different hospital sites. After successfully matching 2,298 (97.6%) patients, echocardiography was associated with significantly increased risks of mortality at 90 days (20.1% vs 16.8%; p = 0.004) and one year (32.9% vs 27.8%; p < 0.001), but not at 30 days (11.4% vs 9.8%; p = 0.084). Patients with echocardiography also had a mean increased delay from presentation to surgery (68.80 hours (SD 44.23) vs 39.69 hours (SD 27.09); p < 0.001), total LOS (19.49 days (SD 25.39) vs 15.94 days (SD 22.48); p < 0.001), and total healthcare costs at one year ($51,714.69 (SD 54,675.28) vs $41,861.47 (SD 50,854.12); p < 0.001). Conclusion. Preoperative echocardiography for hip fracture patients is associated with increased postoperative mortality at 90 days and one year but not at 30 days. Preoperative echocardiography is also associated with increased surgical delay, postoperative LOS, and total healthcare costs at one year. Echocardiography should be considered an urgent test when ordered to prevent additional surgical delay. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):271–278

Aim. Restarting elective services presents a challenge to restore and improve many of the planned patient care pathways which have been suspended during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant backlog of planned elective work has built up representing a considerable volume of patient need. We aimed to investigate the health status, quality of life, and the impact of delay for patients whose referrals and treatment for symptomatic joint arthritis had been delayed as a result of the response to COVID-19. Methods. We interviewed 111 patients referred to our elective outpatient service and whose first appointments had been cancelled as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results. Patients reported significant impacts on their health status and quality of life. Overall, 79 (71.2%) patients reported a further deterioration in their condition while waiting, with seven (6.3%) evaluating their health status as ‘worse than death’. Conclusions. Waiting lists are clearly not benign and how to prioritize patients, their level of need, and access to assessment and treatment must be more sophisticated than simply relying on the length of time a patient has been waiting. This paper supports the contention that patients awaiting elective joint arthroplasty report significant impacts on their quality of life and health status. This should be given appropriate weight when patients are prioritized for surgery as part of the recovery of services following the COVID-19 pandemic. Elective surgery should not be seen as optional surgery—patients do not see it in this way

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after growth-friendly treatment for early-onset scoliosis (EOS) between patients with skeletal dysplasias versus those with other syndromes. Methods. We retrospectively identified 20 patients with skeletal dysplasias and 292 with other syndromes (control group) who had completed surgical growth-friendly EOS treatment between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2018. We compared radiological parameters, complications, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at mean follow-up of 8.6 years (SD 3.3) in the dysplasia group and 6.6 years (SD 2.6) in the control group. Results. Mean major curve correction per patient did not differ significantly between the dysplasia group (43%) and the control group (28%; p = 0.087). Mean annual spinal height increase was less in the dysplasia group (9.3 mm (SD 5.1) than in the control group (16 mm (SD 9.2); p < 0.001). Mean annual spinal growth adjusted to patient preoperative standing height during the distraction period was 11% in the dysplasia group and 14% in the control group (p = 0.070). The complication rate was 1.6 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.0) in the dysplasia group. The following complications were more frequent in the dysplasia group: neurological injury (rate ratio (RR) 5.1 (95% CI 2.3 to 11)), deep surgical site infection (RR 2.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.1)), implant-related complications (RR 2.0 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.7)), and unplanned revision (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.5)). Final fusion did not provide additional spinal height compared with watchful waiting (p = 0.054). There were no significant differences in HRQoL scores between the groups. Conclusion. After growth-friendly EOS treatment, patients with skeletal dysplasias experienced a higher incidence of complications compared to those with other syndromes. Surgical growth-friendly treatment for skeletal dysplasia-associated EOS should be reserved for patients with severe, progressive deformities that are refractory to nonoperative treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):596–602

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the management and associated outcomes of patients sustaining a femoral hip periprosthetic fracture (PPF) in the UK population. Methods. This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including adult patients who presented to 27 NHS hospitals with 539 new PPFs between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. Data collected included: management strategy (operative and nonoperative), length of stay, discharge destination, and details of post-treatment outcomes (reoperation, readmission, and 30-day and 12-month mortality). Descriptive analysis by fracture type was performed, and predictors of PPF management and outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results. In all, 417 fractures (77%) were managed operatively and 122 (23%) conservatively. The median time to surgery was four days (interquartile range (IQR) 2 to 7). Of those undergoing surgery, 246 (59%) underwent revision and/or fixation and 169 (41%) fixation alone. The surgical strategy used differed by Unified Classification System for PPF type, with the highest rate of revision in B2/B3 fractures (both 77%, 176/228 and 24/31, respectively) and the highest rate of fixation alone in B1- (55/78; 71%) and C-type (49/65; 75%) fractures. Cemented stem fixation (odds ratio (OR) 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 4.99); p = 0.002) and B2/B3 fracture type (OR 7.56 (95% CI 4.14 to 13.78); p < 0.001) were predictors of operative management. The median length of stay was 15 days (IQR 9 to 23), 12-month reoperation rate was 5.6% (n = 30), and 30-day readmission rate was 8.4% (n = 45). The 30-day and 12-month mortality rates were 5.2% (n = 28) and 21.0% (n = 113). Nonoperative treatment, older age, male sex, admission from residential or nursing care, and sustaining the PPF around a revision prosthesis were significant predictors of an increased 12-month mortality. Conclusion. Femoral hip PPFs have mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates comparable with hip fracture patients. However, they have a longer wait for surgery, and surgical treatment is more complex. There is a need to create a national framework for data collection for this heterogeneous group of patients in order to understand the outcomes of different approaches to treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):997–1008

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic. Methods. This is a prospective study of 100 patients who were on the waiting list of a single surgeon for an elective hip or knee procedure. Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with their scheduled surgical procedure. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to define if any specific patient factors influenced decision to continue with surgery. Results. Overall, 88 patients (88%) were happy to continue with their scheduled procedure at the earliest opportunity. Patients with an ASA grade I were most likely to agree to surgery, followed by patients with ASA grades II, then those with grade III (93.3%, 88.7%, and 78.6% willingness, respectively). Patients waitlisted for an injection were least likely to consent to surgery, with just 73.7% agreeing. In all, there was a large increase in the proportion of patient willingness to continue with surgery compared to our initial study during the first wave of the pandemic. Conclusion. As COVID-19 lockdown restrictions are lifted after the second peak of the pandemic, we are seeing greater willingness to continue with scheduled orthopaedic surgery, reinforcing a change in patient perception towards having elective surgery. However, we must continue with strict COVID-19 precautions in order to minimize viral transmission as we increase our elective orthopaedic services going forward. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):865–870

Aims. Elective orthopaedic surgery was cancelled early in the COVID-19 pandemic and is currently running at significantly reduced capacity in most institutions. This has resulted in a significant backlog to treatment, with some hospitals projecting that waiting times for arthroplasty is three times the pre-COVID-19 duration. There is concern that the patient group requiring arthroplasty are often older and have more medical comorbidities—the same group of patients advised they are at higher risk of mortality from catching COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate the morbidity and mortality in elective patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this to a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, including nosocomial COVID-19 infection. These operations were performed in a district general hospital, with COVID-19 acute admissions in the same building. Methods. Our institution reinstated elective operations using a “Blue stream” pathway, which involves isolation before and after surgery, COVID-19 testing pre-admission, and separation of ward and theatre pathways for “blue” patients. A register of all arthroplasties was taken, and their clinical course and investigations recorded. Results. During a seven-month period, 340 elective arthroplasties were performed. There was zero mortality. One patient had a positive swab for COVID-19 while an inpatient, but remained asymptomatic. There were two readmissions within a 12-week period for hip dislocation. Patients had a mean age of 68 years (28 to 90), mean BMI of 30 kg/m. 2. (19.0 to 45.6), and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of 2 (1 to 3). Conclusion. Results show no increased morbidity or mortality in this cohort of patients compared to the same hospital’s morbidity and mortality pre-COVID-19. The screened pathway for elective patients is effective in ensuring that patients can be safely operated on electively in an acute hospital. This study should reassure clinicians and patients that arthroplasties can be carried out safely when the appropriate precautions are in place. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):940–944

Aims. To investigate factors that contribute to patient decisions regarding attendance for arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A postal questionnaire was distributed to patients on the waiting list for hip or knee arthroplasty in a single tertiary centre within the UK. Patient factors that may have influenced the decision to attend for arthroplasty, global quality of life (QoL) (EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L)), and joint-specific QoL (Oxford Hip or Knee Score) were assessed. Patients were asked at which ‘COVID-alert’ level they would be willing to attend an NHS and a “COVID-light” hospital for arthroplasty. Independent predictors were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results. Of 540 distributed questionnaires, 400 (74.1%; 236 awaiting hip arthroplasty, 164 awaiting knee arthroplasty) complete responses were received and included. Less than half (48.2%) were willing to attend for hip or knee arthroplasty while a UK COVID-19 epidemic was in circulation (COVID-alert levels 3 to 5). Patients with worse joint-specific QoL had a preference to proceed with surgery at COVID-alert levels 3 to 5 compared to levels 1 and 2 (hip arthroplasty odds ratio (OR) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.63); knee arthroplasty OR 1.16 (1.07 to 1.26)). The odds of patients with worse joint-specific QoL being willing to attend for surgery at COVID-alert levels 3 to 5 increased further if surgery in a private, “COVID-light” hospital was available (hip arthroplasty OR 3.50 (95% CI 3.26 to 3.71); knee arthroplasty OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.53). Conclusion. Patient decisions surrounding elective surgery have been influenced by the global COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the importance of patient involvement in ensuring optimized provision of elective surgery during these challenging times. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):261–270