Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

Aims. There is a considerable challenge in treating bone infections and orthopaedic device-associated infection (ODAI), partly due to impaired penetration of systemically administrated antibiotics at the site of infection. This may be circumvented by local drug administration. Knowledge of the release kinetics from any carrier material is essential for proper application. Ceftriaxone shows a particular constant release from calcium sulphate (CaSO. 4. ) in vitro, and is particularly effective against streptococci and a large portion of Gram-negative bacteria. We present the clinical release kinetics of ceftriaxone-loaded CaSO. 4. applied locally to treat ODAI. Methods. A total of 30 operations with ceftriaxone-loaded CaSO. 4. had been performed in 28 patients. Ceftriaxone was applied as a single local antibiotic in 21 operations and combined with vancomycin in eight operations, and in an additional operation with vancomycin and amphotericin B. Sampling of wound fluid was performed from drains or aspirations. Ceftriaxone concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Results. A total of 37 wound fluid concentrations from 16 operations performed in 14 patients were collected. The ceftriaxone concentrations remained approximately within a range of 100 to 200 mg/l up to three weeks. The median concentration was 108.9 mg/l (interquartile range 98.8 to 142.5) within the first ten days. No systemic adverse reactions were observed. Conclusion. Our study highlights new clinical data of locally administered ceftriaxone with CaSO. 4. as carrier material. The near-constant release of ceftriaxone from CaSO. 4. observed in vitro could be confirmed in vivo. The concentrations remained below known local toxicity thresholds. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(11):835–842

Aims. COVID-19-related patient care delays have resulted in an unprecedented patient care backlog in the field of orthopaedics. The objective of this study is to examine orthopaedic provider preferences regarding the patient care backlog and financial recovery initiatives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. An orthopaedic research consortium at a multi-hospital tertiary care academic medical system developed a three-part survey examining provider perspectives on strategies to expand orthopaedic patient care and financial recovery. Section 1 asked for preferences regarding extending clinic hours, section 2 assessed surgeon opinions on expanding surgical opportunities, and section 3 questioned preferred strategies for departmental financial recovery. The survey was sent to the institution’s surgical and nonoperative orthopaedic providers. Results. In all, 73 of 75 operative (n = 55) and nonoperative (n = 18) providers responded to the survey. A total of 92% of orthopaedic providers (n = 67) were willing to extend clinic hours. Most providers preferred extending clinic schedule until 6pm on weekdays. When asked about extending surgical block hours, 96% of the surgeons (n = 53) were willing to extend operating room (OR) block times. Most surgeons preferred block times to be extended until 7pm (63.6%, n = 35). A majority of surgeons (53%, n = 29) believe that over 50% of their surgical cases could be performed at an ambulatory surgery centre (ASC). Of the strategies to address departmental financial deficits, 85% of providers (n = 72) were willing to work extra hours without a pay cut. Conclusion. Most orthopaedic providers are willing to help with patient care backlogs and revenue recovery by working extended hours instead of having their pay reduced. These findings provide insights that can be incorporated into COVID-19 recovery strategies. Level of Evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):562–568

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

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. There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods. A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results. A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion. Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53

Aims. Malignancy and surgery are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We undertook a systematic review of the literature concerning the prophylactic management of VTE in orthopaedic oncology patients. Methods. MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched focusing on VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding, or wound complication rates. Results. In all, 17 studies published from 1998 to 2018 met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The mean incidence of all VTE events in orthopaedic oncology patients was 10.7% (1.1% to 27.7%). The rate of PE was 2.4% (0.1% to 10.6%) while the rate of lethal PE was 0.6% (0.0% to 4.3%). The overall rate of DVT was 8.8% (1.1% to 22.3%) and the rate of symptomatic DVT was 2.9% (0.0% to 6.2%). From the studies that screened all patients prior to hospital discharge, the rate of asymptomatic DVT was 10.9% (2.0% to 20.2%). The most common risk factors identified for VTE were endoprosthetic replacements, hip and pelvic resections, presence of metastases, surgical procedures taking longer than three hours, and patients having chemotherapy. Mean incidence of VTE with and without chemical prophylaxis was 7.9% (1.1% to 21.8%) and 8.7% (2.0% to 23.4%; p = 0.11), respectively. No difference in the incidence of bleeding or wound complications between prophylaxis groups was reported. Conclusion. Current evidence is limited to guide clinicians. It is our consensus opinion, based upon logic and deduction, that all patients be considered for both mechanical and chemical VTE prophylaxis, particularly in high-risk patients (pelvic or hip resections, prosthetic reconstruction, malignant diagnosis, presence of metastases, or surgical procedures longer than three hours). Additionally, the surgeon must determine, in each patient, if the risk of haemorrhage outweighs the risk of VTE. No individual pharmacological agent has been identified as being superior in the prevention of VTE events. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12)1743:–1751

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. During the COVID-19 pandemic, drilling has been classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of bone drilling on splatter generation. Our aim was to quantify the effect of drilling on splatter generation within the orthopaedic operative setting. Methods. This study was performed using a Stryker System 7 dual rotating drill at full speed. Two fluid mediums (Videne (Solution 1) and Fluorescein (Solution 2)) were used to simulate drill splatter conditions. Drilling occurred at saw bone level (0 cm) and at different heights (20 cm, 50 cm, and 100 cm) above the target to simulate the surgeon ‘working arm length’, with and without using a drill guide. The furthest droplets were marked and the droplet displacement was measured in cm. A surgical microscope was used to detect microscopic droplets. Results. Bone drilling produced 5 cm and 7 cm droplet displacement using Solutions 1 and 2, respectively. Drilling at 100 cm above the target produced the greatest splatter generation with a 95 cm macroscopic droplet displacement using Solution 2. Microscopic droplet generation was noticed at further distances than what can be macroscopically seen using Solution 1 (98 cm). Using the drill guide, there was negligible drill splatter generation. Conclusion. Our study has shown lower than anticipated drill splatter generation. The use of a drill guide acted as a protective measure and significantly reduced drill splatter. We therefore recommend using a drill guide at all times to reduce the risk of viral transmission in the operative setting. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):752–756

Aims. Gender bias and sexual discrimination (GBSD) have been widely recognized across a range of fields and are now part of the wider social consciousness. Such conduct can occur in the medical workplace, with detrimental effects on recipients. The aim of this review was to identify the prevalence and impact of GBSD in orthopaedic surgery, and to investigate interventions countering such behaviours. Methods. A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMCARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library Database in April 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to which we adhered. Original research papers pertaining to the prevalence and impact of GBSD, or mitigating strategies, within orthopaedics were included for review. Results. Of 570 papers, 27 were eligible for inclusion. These were published between 1998 and 2020. A narrative review was performed in light of the significant heterogeneity displayed by the eligible studies. A total of 13 papers discussed the prevalence of GBSD, while 13 related to the impact of these behaviours, and six discussed mitigating strategies. GBSD was found to be common in the orthopaedic workplace, with all sources showing women to be the subjects. The impact of this includes poor workforce representation, lower salaries, and less career success, including in academia, for women in orthopaedics. Mitigating strategies in the literature are focused on providing female role models, mentors, and educational interventions. Conclusion. GBSD is common in orthopaedic surgery, with a substantial impact on sufferers. A small number of mitigating strategies have been tested but these are limited in their scope. As such, the orthopaedic community is obliged to participate in more thoughtful and proactive strategies that mitigate against GBSD, by improving female recruitment and retention within the specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1446–1456

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA. Methods. A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted of all orthopaedic oncologic patients undergoing surgical evaluation from March to June 2020. Patients were prioritized as level 0-IV, 0 being elective and IV being emergent. Only priority levels 0 to III were included. Delay duration was measured in days and resulting morbidities were categorized into seven groups: prolonged pain/disability; unplanned preoperative radiation and/or chemotherapy; local tumour progression; increased systemic disease; missed opportunity for surgery due to progression of disease/lost to follow up; delay in diagnosis; and no morbidity. Results. Overall, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. There were eight benign tumours, seven metastatic, seven primary sarcomas, one multiple myeloma, and two patients without a biopsy proven diagnosis. There was no priority level 0, two priority level I, six priority level II, and 17 priority level III cases. The mean duration of delay for priority level I was 114 days (84 to 143), priority level II was 88 days (63 to 133), and priority level III was 77 days (35 to 269). Prolonged pain/disability and delay in diagnosis, affecting 52% and 40%,respectively, represented the two most frequent morbidities. Local tumour progression and increased systemic disease affected 32% and 24% respectively. No patients tested positive for COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 related delays in surgical management led to major morbidity in this studied orthopaedic oncologic patient population. By understanding these morbidities through clearer hindsight, a thoughtful approach can be developed to balance the risk of COVID-19 exposure versus delay in treatment, ensuring optimal care for orthopedic oncologic patients as the pandemic continues with intermittent calls for halting surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):236–242

Aims. COVID-19 remains the major focus of healthcare provision. Managing orthopaedic emergencies effectively, while at the same time protecting patients and staff, remains a challenge. We explore how the UK lockdown affected the rate, distribution, and type of orthopaedic emergency department (ED) presentations, using the same period in 2019 as reference. This article discusses considerations for the ED and trauma wards to help to maintain the safety of patients and healthcare providers with an emphasis on more remote geography. Methods. The study was conducted from 23 March 2020 to 5 May 2020 during the full lockdown period (2020 group) and compared to the same time frame in 2019 (2019 group). Included are all patients who attended the ED at Raigmore Hospital during this period from both the local area and tertiary referral from throughout the UK Highlands. Data was collected and analyzed through the ED Information System (EDIS) as well as ward and theatre records. Results. A total of 1,978 patients presented to the ED during the lockdown period, compared to 4,777 patients in the same timeframe in 2019; a reduction of 58.6%. Orthopaedic presentations in 2020 and 2019 were 736 (37.2%) and 1,729 (36.2%) respectively, representing a 57.4% reduction. During the lockdown, 43.6% of operations were major procedures (n = 48) and 56.4% were minor procedures (n = 62), representing a significant proportional shift. Conclusion. During the COVID- 19 lockdown period there was a significant reduction in ED attendances and orthopaedic presentations compared to 2019. We also observed that there was a proportional increase in fractures in elderly patients and in minor injuries requiring surgery. These represented the majority of the orthopaedic workload during the lockdown period of 2020. Given this shift towards smaller surgical procedures, we suggest that access to a minor operating theatre in or close to ED would be desirable in the event of a second wave or future crisis

Aims. The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations. Methods. This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline. Results. Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission. Conclusion. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309–315

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

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. Our rural orthopaedic service has undergone service restructure during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to sustain hip fracture care. All adult trauma care has been centralised to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for assessment and medical input, before transferring those requiring operative intervention to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital. We aim to review the impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture workload and service changes upon management of hip fractures. Methods. We reviewed our prospectively maintained trust database and National Hip Fracture Database records for the months of March and April between the years 2016 and 2020. Our assessment included fracture pattern (intrascapular vs extracapsular hip fracture), treatment intervention, length of stay and mortality. Results. We treated 288 patients during March and April between 2016 and 2020, with a breakdown of 55, 58, 53, 68, and 54 from 2016 to 2020 respectively. Fracture pattern distribution in the pre-COVID-19 years of 2016 to 2019 was 58% intracapsular and 42% extracapsular. In 2020 (COVID-19 period) the fracture patterns were 65% intracapsular and 35% extracapsular. Our mean length of stay was 13.1 days (SD 8.2) between 2016 to 2019, and 5.0 days (6.3) days in 2020 (p < 0.001). Between 2016 and 2019 we had three deaths in hip fracture patients, and one death in 2020. Hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw fixation have been the mainstay of operative intervention across the five years and this has continued in the COVID-19 period. We have experienced a rise in conservatively managed patients; ten in 2020 compared to 14 over the previous four years. Conclusion. There has not been a reduction in the number of hip fractures during COVID-19 period compared to the same time period over previous years. In our experience, there has been an increase in conservative treatment and decreased length of stay during the COVID -19 period. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:500–507

Aims. The primary aim is to estimate the current and potential number of patients on NHS England orthopaedic elective waiting lists by November 2020. The secondary aims are to model recovery strategies; review the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty from National Joint Registry (NJR) data; and assess the cost of returning to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. Methods. A model of referral, waiting list, and eventual surgery was created and calibrated using historical data from NHS England (April 2017 to March 2020) and was used to investigate the possible consequences of unmet demand resulting from fewer patients entering the treatment pathway and recovery strategies. NJR data were used to estimate the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty by August 2020 and NHS tariff costs were used to calculate the financial burden. Results. By November 2020, the elective waiting list in England is predicted to be between 885,286 and 1,028,733. If reduced hospital capacity is factored into the model, returning to full capacity by November, the waiting list could be as large as 1.4 million. With a 30% increase in productivity, it would take 20 months if there was no hidden burden of unreferred patients, and 48 months if there was a hidden burden, to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. By August 2020, the estimated deficits of hip and knee arthroplasties from NJR data were 18,298 (44.8%) and 16,567 (38.6%), respectively, compared to the same time period in 2019. The cost to clear this black log would be £198,811,335. Conclusion. There will be up to 1.4 million patients on elective orthopaedic waiting lists in England by November 2020, approximate three-times the pre-COVID-19 average. There are various strategies for recovery to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers reliant on increasing capacity, but these have substantial cost implications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):103–110

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271