Aims. This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. Methods. This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT, recruiting 60 patients following hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomized to usual NHS care, versus usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme will comprise of three, one-hour, one-to-one training sessions for the patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist, or occupational therapist. Training will be delivered in the hospital setting pre-patient discharge. It will include practical skills for rehabilitation such as: transfers and walking; recovery goal setting and expectations; pacing and stress management techniques; and introduction to the HIP HELPER Caregiver Workbook, which provides information on recovery, exercises, worksheets, and goal-setting plans to facilitate a ‘good’ recovery. After discharge, patients and caregivers will be supported in delivering rehabilitation through three telephone coaching sessions. Data, collected at baseline and four months post-randomization, will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, quality assurance monitoring visit data, and clinical outcomes assessing quality of life, physical, emotional, adverse events, and resource use outcomes. The acceptability of the study intervention and RCT design will be explored through qualitative methods with 20 participants (patients and informal caregivers) and 12 health professionals. Discussion. A multicentre recruitment approach will provide greater external validity across population characteristics in England. The mixed-methods approach will permit in-depth examination of the intervention and trial design parameters. The findings will inform whether and how a definitive trial may be undertaken to test the effectiveness of this caregiver intervention for patients after hip fracture surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):909–920

Aims. Day-case arthroplasty is gaining popularity in Europe. We report outcomes from the first 12 months following implementation of a day-case pathway for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) in an NHS hospital. Methods. A total of 47 total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 24 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) patients were selected for the day-case arthroplasty pathway, based on preoperative fitness and agreement to participate. Data were likewise collected for a matched control group (n = 58) who followed the standard pathway three months prior to the implementation of the day-case pathway. We report same-day discharge (SDD) success, reasons for delayed discharge, and patient-reported outcomes. Overall length of stay (LOS) for all lower limb arthroplasty was recorded to determine the wider impact of implementing a day-case pathway. Results. Patients on the day-case pathway achieved SDD in 47% (22/47) of THAs and 67% (16/24) of UKAs. The most common reasons for failed SDD were nausea, hypotension, and pain, which were strongly associated with the use of fentanyl in the spinal anaesthetic. Complications and patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Following the introduction of the day-case pathway, the mean LOS reduced significantly by 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5 days respectively in THA, UKA, and total knee arthroplasty cases (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Day-case pathways are feasible in an NHS set-up with only small changes required. We do not recommend fentanyl in the spinal anaesthetic for day-case patients. An important benefit seen in our unit is the so-called ‘day-case effect’, with a significant reduction in mean LOS seen across all lower limb arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):900–908

Aims. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients continue to require urgent surgery for hip fractures. However, the impact of COVID-19 on perioperative outcomes in these high-risk patients remains unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the effects of COVID-19 on perioperative morbidity and mortality, and determine any risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing hip fracture surgery. Methods. This multicentre cohort study included 340 COVID-19-negative patients versus 82 COVID-19-positive patients undergoing surgical treatment for hip fractures across nine NHS hospitals in Greater London, UK. Patients in both treatment groups were comparable for age, sex, body mass index, fracture configuration, and type of surgery performed. Predefined perioperative outcomes were recorded within a 30-day postoperative period. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify risk factors associated with increased risk of mortality. Results. COVID-19-positive patients had increased postoperative mortality rates (30.5% (25/82) vs 10.3% (35/340) respectively, p < 0.001) compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery included positive smoking status (hazard ratio (HR) 15.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.55 to 52.2; p < 0.001) and greater than three comorbidities (HR 13.5 (95% CI 2.82 to 66.0, p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients had increased risk of postoperative complications (89.0% (73/82) vs 35.0% (119/340) respectively; p < 0.001), more critical care unit admissions (61.0% (50/82) vs 18.2% (62/340) respectively; p < 0.001), and increased length of hospital stay (mean 13.8 days (SD 4.6) vs 6.7 days (SD 2.5) respectively; p < 0.001), compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Conclusion. Hip fracture surgery in COVID-19-positive patients was associated with increased length of hospital stay, more admissions to the critical care unit, higher risk of perioperative complications, and increased mortality rates compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery included positive smoking status and multiple (greater than three) comorbidities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1136–1145

Aims. Despite recent literature questioning their use, vancomycin and clindamycin often substitute cefazolin as the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in the setting of documented allergy to penicillin. Topical povidone-iodine lavage and vancomycin powder (VIP) are adjuncts that may further broaden antimicrobial coverage, and have shown some promise in recent investigations. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to compare the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary TKA patients who received cefazolin and VIP to those who received a non-cephalosporin alternative and VIP. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,550 primary TKAs performed at an orthopaedic hospital between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PJI occurring within 90 days of surgery. Patients were stratified into two groups (cefazolin vs non-cephalosporin) based on their preoperative antibiotic. All patients also received the VIP protocol at wound closure. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to control for potential confounders and identify the odds ratio of PJI. Results. In all, 10,484 knees (90.8%) received cefazolin, while 1,066 knees (9.2%) received a non-cephalosporin agent (either vancomycin or clindamycin) as preoperative prophylaxis. The rate of PJI in the cefazolin group (0.5%; 48/10,484) was significantly lower than the rate of PJI in the non-cephalosporin group (1.0%; 11/1,066) (p = 0.012). After controlling for confounding variables, the odds ratio (OR) of developing a PJI was increased in the non-cephalosporin cohort compared to the cefazolin cohort (OR 2.389; 1.2 to 4.6); p = 0.01). Conclusion. Despite the use of topical irrigant solutions and addition of local antimicrobial agents, the use of a non-cephalosporin perioperative antibiotic continues to be associated with a greater risk of TKA PJI compared to cefazolin. Strategies that increase the proportion of patients receiving cefazolin rather than non-cephalosporin alternatives must be emphasized. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):35–41

Aims. The current pandemic caused by COVID-19 is the biggest challenge for national health systems for a century. While most medical resources are allocated to treat COVID-19 patients, several non-COVID-19 medical emergencies still need to be treated, including vertebral fractures and spinal cord compression. The aim of this paper is to report the early experience and an organizational protocol for emergency spinal surgery currently being used in a large metropolitan area by an integrated team of orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. Methods. An organizational model is presented based on case centralization in hub hospitals and early management of surgical cases to reduce hospital stay. Data from all the patients admitted for emergency spinal surgery from the beginning of the outbreak were prospectively collected and compared to data from patients admitted for the same reason in the same time span in the previous year, and treated by the same integrated team. Results. A total of 19 patients (11 males and eight females, with a mean age of 49.9 years (14 to 83)) were admitted either for vertebral fracture or spinal cord compression in a 19-day period, compared to the ten admitted in the previous year. No COVID-19 patients were treated. The mean time between admission and surgery was 1.7 days, significantly lower than 6.8 days the previous year (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The structural organization and the management protocol we describe allowed us to reduce the time to surgery and ultimately hospital stay, thereby maximizing the already stretched medical resources available. We hope that our early experience can be of value to the medical communities that will soon be in the same emergency situation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):671–676

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. Methods. Adapting to the crisis locally involved five operational elements: 1) triaging and workflow of orthopaedic patients; 2) operation theatre feasibility and functioning; 3) conservation of human resources and management of workforce in the department; 4) speciality training and progression; and 5) developing an exit strategy to resume elective work. Two hospitals under our trust were redesignated based on the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Registrar/consultant led telehealth reviews were carried out for early postoperative patients. Workflows for the management of outpatient care and inpatient care were created. We looked into the development of a dedicated operating space to perform the emergency orthopaedic surgeries without symptoms of COVID-19. Between March 23 and April 23, 2020, we have surgically treated 133 patients across both our hospitals in our trust. This mainly included hip fractures and fractures/infection affecting the hand. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic is not the first disease outbreak affecting the UK, nor will it be the last. The current crisis has necessitated rapid development of new hospital guidelines and early adaptive strategies in our services. Protocols and directives need to be formalized keeping in mind that COVID-19 will have a long and protracted course until a definitive cure is discovered

Aims. Access to joint replacement is being restricted for patients with comorbidities in a number of high-income countries. However, there is little evidence on the impact of comorbidities on outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty in patients with and without comorbidities. Methods. In total, 312,079 hip arthroplasty and 328,753 knee arthroplasty patients were included. A total of 11 common comorbidities were identified in administrative hospital records. Safety risks were measured by assessing length of hospital stay (LOS) and 30-day emergency readmissions and mortality. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in Oxford Hip or Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) (scale from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) and in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) (scale from 0 (death) to 1 (full health)) from immediately before, to six months after, surgery. Regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted mean differences (LOS, change in OHS/OKS/EQ-5D) and risk differences (readmissions and mortality). Results. Patients with comorbidities had a longer LOS and higher readmission and mortality rates than patients without. In hip arthroplasty patients with heart disease, for example, LOS was 1.20 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.25) longer and readmission rate was 1.52% (95% CI 1.34% to 1.71%) and mortality 0.19% (95% CI 0.15% to 0.23%) higher. Similar patterns were observed for knee arthroplasty patients. Patients without comorbidities reported large improvements in function (mean improvement OHS 21.3 (SD 9.91) and OKS 15.9 (SD 10.0)). Patients with comorbidities reported only slightly smaller improvements. In patients with heart disease, mean improvement in OHS was 0.39 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and in OKS 0.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.67) less than in patients without comorbidities. There were no significant differences in EQ-5D improvement. Conclusion. Comorbidities were associated with small increases in adverse safety risks but they have little impact on pain or function in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. These results do not support restricting access to hip and knee arthroplasty for patients with common comorbidities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):56–64

Aims. The primary aim of this paper was to outline the processes involved in building the Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR), established in April 2016 to capture baseline and outcome data for patients undergoing arthroplasty in a regional healthcare system. A secondary aim was to determine the quality of PAR’s data. A tertiary aim was to report preliminary findings from the registry and contributions to quality improvement initiatives and research up to March 2019. Methods. Structured Query Language was used to obtain data relating to patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) from the hospital network’s electronic medical record (EMR) system to be included in the PAR. Data were stored in a secure database and visualized in dashboards. Quality assurance of PAR data was performed by review of the medical records. Capture rate was determined by comparing two months of PAR data with operating room schedules. Linear and binary logistic regression models were constructed to determine if length of stay (LOS), discharge to a care home, and readmission rates improved between 2016 and 2019. Results. The PAR captured 16,163 THAs and TKAs between April 2016 and March 2019, performed in seven hospitals by 110 surgeons. Manual comparison to operating schedules showed a 100% capture rate. Review of the records was performed for 2,603 random operations; 2,298 (88.3%) had complete and accurate data. The PAR provided the data for three abstracts presented at international conferences and has led to preoperative mental health treatment as a quality improvement initiative in the participating institutions. For primary THA and TKA surgeries, the LOS decreased significantly (p < 0.001) and the rate of home discharge increased significantly (p < 0.001) between 2016 and 2019. Readmission rates did not correlated with the date of surgery (p = 0.953). Conclusion. The PAR has high rates of coverage (the number of patients treated within the Partners healthcare network) and data completion and can be used for both research purposes and quality improvement. The same method of creating a registry that was used in the PAR can be applied to hospitals using similar EMR systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):90–98