Aims. Computer-based applications are increasingly being used by orthopaedic surgeons in their clinical practice. With the integration of technology in surgery, augmented reality (AR) may become an important tool for surgeons in the future. By superimposing a digital image on a user’s view of the physical world, this technology shows great promise in orthopaedics. The aim of this review is to investigate the current and potential uses of AR in orthopaedics. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to January 2019 using the keywords ‘orthopaedic’ OR ‘orthopedic AND augmented reality’ was performed by two independent reviewers. Results. A total of 41 publications were included after screening. Applications were divided by subspecialty: spine (n = 15), trauma (n = 16), arthroplasty (n = 3), oncology (n = 3), and sports (n = 4). Out of these, 12 were clinical in nature. AR-based technologies have a wide variety of applications, including direct visualization of radiological images by overlaying them on the patient and intraoperative guidance using preoperative plans projected onto real anatomy, enabling hands-free real-time access to operating room resources, and promoting telemedicine and education. Conclusion. There is an increasing interest in AR among orthopaedic surgeons. Although studies show similar or better outcomes with AR compared with traditional techniques, many challenges need to be addressed before this technology is ready for widespread use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1479–1488

Aims. Now that we are in the deceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has shifted to how to safely reinstate elective operating. Regional and speciality specific data is important to guide this decision-making process. This study aimed to review 30-day mortality for all patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery during the peak of the pandemic within our region. Methods. This multicentre study reviewed data on all patients undergoing trauma and orthopaedic surgery in a region from 18 March 2020 to 27 April 2020. Information was collated from regional databases. Patients were COVID-19-positive if they had positive laboratory testing and/or imaging consistent with the infection. 30-day mortality was assessed for all patients. Secondly, 30-day mortality in fracture neck of femur patients was compared to the same time period in 2019. Results. Overall, 496 operations were carried out in 484 patients. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.9%. Seven out of nine deceased patients underwent surgery for a fractured neck of femur. In all, 27 patients contracted COVID-19 in the peri-operative period; of these, four patients died within 30 days (14.8%). In addition, 21 of the 27 patients in this group had a fractured neck of femur, 22 were over the age of 70 years (81.5%). Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade > 3 and/or age > 75 years were at significantly higher risk of death if they contracted COVID-19 within the study period. Conclusion. Overall 30-day postoperative mortality in trauma and orthopaedic surgery patients remains low at 1.9%. There was no 30-day mortality in patients ASA 1 or 2. Patients with significant comorbidities, increasing age, and ASA 3 or above remain at the highest risk. For patients with COVID-19 infection, postoperative 30-day mortality was 14.8%. The reintroduction of elective services should consider individual patient risk profile (including for ASA grade). Effective postoperative strategies should also be employed to try and reduce postoperative exposure to the virus. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:392–397

Aims. We aim to objectively assess the impact of COVID-19 on mean total operative cases for all indicative procedures (as outlined by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST)) experienced by orthopaedic trainees in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Subjective experiences were reported for each trainee using questionnaires. Methods. During the first four weeks of the nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19, the objective impact of the pandemic on each trainee’s surgical caseload exposure was assessed using data from individual trainee logbook profiles in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Independent predictor variables included the trainee grade (ST 3 to 8), the individual trainee, the unit that the logbook was reported from, and the year in which the logbook was recorded. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to assess for any statistically significant predictor variables. The subjective experience of each trainee was captured using an electronic questionnaire. Results. The mean number of total procedures per trainee over four weeks was 36.8 (7 to 99; standard deviation (SD) 19.67) in 2018, 40.6 (6 to 81; SD 17.90) in 2019, and 18.3 (3 to 65; SD 11.70) during the pandemic of 2020 (p = 0.043). Significant reductions were noted for all elective indicative procedures, including arthroplasty (p = 0.019), osteotomy (p = 0.045), nerve decompression (p = 0.024) and arthroscopy (p = 0.024). In contrast, none of the nine indicative procedures for trauma were reduced. There was a significant inter-unit difference in the mean number of total cases (p = 0.029) and indicative cases (p = 0.0005) per trainee. We noted that 7.69% (n = 3) of trainees contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean number of operative cases per trainee has been significantly reduced for four of the 13 indicative procedures, as outlined by the JCST. Reassignment of trainees to high-volume institutions in the future may be a plausible approach to mitigate significant training deficits in those trainees worst impacted by the reduction in operative exposure

Aims. To determine the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaediatric admissions and fracture clinics within a regional integrated care system (ICS). Methods. A retrospective review was performed for all paediatric orthopaedic patients admitted across the region during the recent lockdown period (24 March 2020 to 10 May 2020) and the same period in 2019. Age, sex, mechanism, anatomical region, and treatment modality were compared, as were fracture clinic attendances within the receiving regional major trauma centre (MTC) between the two periods. Results. Paediatric trauma admissions across the region fell by 33% (197 vs 132) with a proportional increase to 59% (n = 78) of admissions to the MTC during lockdown compared with 28.4% in 2019 (N = 56). There was a reduction in manipulation under anaesthetic (p = 0.015) and the use of Kirschner wires (K-wires) (p = 0.040) between the two time periods. The median time to surgery remained one day in both (2019 IQR 0 to 2; 2020 IQR 1 to 1). Supracondylar fractures were the most common reason for fracture clinic attendance (17.3%, n = 19) with a proportional increase of 108.4% vs 2019 (2019 n = 20; 2020 n = 19) (p = 0.007). While upper limb injuries and falls from play apparatus, equipment, or height remained the most common indications for admission, there was a reduction in sports injuries (p < 0.001) but an increase in lacerations (p = 0.031). Fracture clinic management changed with 67% (n = 40) of follow-up appointments via telephone and 69% (n = 65) of patients requiring cast immobilization treated with a 3M Soft Cast, enabling self-removal. The safeguarding team saw a 22% reduction in referrals (2019: n = 41, 2020: n = 32). Conclusion. During this viral pandemic, the number of trauma cases decreased with a change in the mechanism of injury, median age of presentation, and an increase in referrals to the regional MTC. Adaptions in standard practice led to fewer MUA, and K-wire procedures being performed, more supracondylar fractures managed through clinic and an increase in the use of removable cast. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:424–430

Aims. The new COVID-19 variant was reported by the authorities of the UK to the World Health Organization (WHO) on 14 December 2020. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and nosocomial infection rates in major trauma and orthopaedic patients comparing the first and second wave of COVID-19 infection. Methods. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected trauma database was reviewed at a level 1 major trauma centre from 1 December 2020 to 18 February 2021 looking at demographics, clinical characteristics, and nosocomial infections and compared to our previously published first wave data (26 January 2020 to 14 April 2020). Results. From 1 December 2020 to 18 February 2021, 522 major trauma patients were identified with a mean age of 54.6 years, and 53.4% (n = 279) were male. Common admissions were falls (318; 60.9%) and road traffic accidents (RTAs; 71 (13.6%); 262 of these patients (50.2%) had surgery. In all, 75 patients (14.4%) tested positive for COVID-19, of which 51 (68%) were nosocomial. Surgery on COVID-19 patients increased to 46 (61.3%) in the second wave compared to 13 (33.3%) in the first wave (p = 0.005). ICU admissions of patients with COVID-19 infection increased from two (5.1%) to 16 (20.5%), respectively (p = 0.024). Second wave mortality was 6.1% (n = 32) compared to first wave of 4.7% (n = 31). Cardiovascular (CV) disease (35.9%; n = 14); p = 0.027) and dementia (17.9%; n = 7); p = 0.030) were less in second wave than the first. Overall, 13 patients (25.5%) were Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME), and five (9.8%) had a BMI > 30 kg/m. 2. The mean time from admission to diagnosis of COVID-19 was 13.9 days (3 to 44). Overall, 12/75 (16%) of all COVID-19 patients died. Conclusion. During the second wave, COVID-19 infected three-times more patients. There were double the number of operative cases, and quadruple the cases of ICU admissions. The patients were younger with less dementia and CV disease with lower mortality. Concomitant COVID-19 and the necessity of major trauma surgery showed 13% mortality in the second wave compared with 15.4% in the first wave. In contrast to the literature, we showed a high percentage of nosocomial infection, normal BMI, and limited BAME infections. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):661–670

Aims. COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. Methods. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19. Results. A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019. Conclusion. Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520–529

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

Introduction. Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are being increasingly used to offer safe and efficient orthopaedic review without the requirement for face-to-face contact. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to develop an online referral pathway that would allow us to provide definitive orthopaedic management plans and reduce face-to-face contact at the fracture clinics. Methods. All patients presenting to the emergency department from 21March 2020 with a musculoskeletal injury or potential musculoskeletal infection deemed to require orthopaedic input were discussed using a secure messaging app. A definitive management plan was communicated by an on-call senior orthopaedic decision-maker. We analyzed the time to decision, if further information was needed, and the referral outcome. An analysis of the orthopaedic referrals for the same period in 2019 was also performed as a comparison. Results. During the study period, 295 patients with mean age of 7.93 years (standard error (SE) 0.24) were reviewed. Of these, 25 (9.8%) were admitted, 17 (5.8%) were advised to return for planned surgical intervention, 105 (35.6%) were referred to a face-to-face fracture clinic, 137 (46.4%) were discharged with no follow-up, and seven (2.4%) were referred to other services. The mean time to decision was 20.14 minutes (SE 1.73). There was a significant difference in the time to decision between patients referred to fracture clinic and patients discharged (mean 25.25 minutes (SE 3.18) vs mean 2.63 (SE 1.42); p < 0.005). There were a total of 295 referrals to the fracture clinic for the same period in 2019 with a further 44 emergency admissions. There was a statistically significant difference in the weekly referrals after being triaged by the VFC (mean 59 (SE 5.15) vs mean 21 (SE 2.17); p < 0.001). Conclusion. The use of an electronic referral pathway to deliver a point of care virtual fracture clinic allowed for efficient use of scarce resources and definitive management plan delivery in a safe manner. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:293–301

Aims. Informed patient consent is a legal prerequisite endorsed by multiple regulatory institutions including the Royal College of Surgeons and the General Medical Council. It is also recommended that the provision of written information is available and may take the form of a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) with multiple PILs available from leading orthopaedic institutions. PILs may empower the patient, improve compliance, and improve the patient experience. The national reading age in the United Kingdom is less than 12 years and therefore PILs should be written at a readability level not exceeding 12 years old. We aim to assess the readability of PILs currently provided by United Kingdom orthopaedic institutions. Patients and Methods. The readability of PILs on 58 common conditions provided by seven leading orthopaedic associations in January 2017, including the British Orthopaedic Association, British Hip Society, and the British Association of Spinal Surgeons, was assessed. All text in each PIL was analyzed using readability scores including the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) test. Results. The mean FKGL was 10.4 (6.7 to 17.0), indicating a mean reading age of 15 years. The mean SMOG score was 12.8 (9.7 to 17.9) indicating a mean reading age of 17 years. Conclusion. Orthopaedic-related PILs do not comply with the recommended reading age, with some requiring graduate-level reading ability. Patients do not have access to appropriate orthopaedic-related PILs. Current publicly available PILs require further review to promote patient education and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1253–9

Introduction. There is widespread variation in the management of rare orthopaedic disease, in a large part owing to uncertainty. No individual surgeon or hospital is typically equipped to amass sufficient numbers of cases to draw robust conclusions from the information available to them. The programme of research will establish the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study; a nationwide reporting structure for rare disease in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. The BOSS Study is a series of nationwide observational cohort studies of pre-specified orthopaedic disease. All relevant hospitals treating the disease are invited to contribute anonymised case details. Data will be collected digitally through REDCap, with an additional bespoke software solution used to regularly confirm case ascertainment, prompt follow-up reminders and identify potential missing cases from external sources of information (i.e. national administrative data). With their consent, patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymised case data with patient reported outcomes. The study will primarily seek to calculate the incidence of the rare diseases under investigation, with 95% confidence intervals. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the case mix, treatment variations and outcomes. Inferential statistical analysis may be used to analyze associations between presentation factors and outcomes. Types of analyses will be contingent on the disease under investigation. Discussion. This study builds upon other national rare disease supporting structures, particularly those in obstetrics and paediatric surgery. It is particularly focused on addressing the evidence base for quality and safety of surgery, and the design is influenced by the specifications of the IDEAL collaboration for the development of surgical research

Aim. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. Methods. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections. Results. There is a paucity of high quality evidence surrounding COVID-19. This review collates evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks to put forward recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key findings have been summarized and interpreted for application to the orthopaedic operative setting. Conclusion. For COVID-19 positive patients, minimum suggested PPE includes N95 respirator, goggles, face shield, gown, double gloves, and surgical balaclava. Space suits not advised. Be trained in the correct technique of donning and doffing PPE. Use negative pressure theatres if available. Minimize aerosolization and its effects (smoke evacuation and no pulse lavage). Minimize further unnecessary patient-staff contact (dissolvable sutures, clear dressings, split casts)

Aims. The primary aim of the survey was to map the current provision of simulation training within UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) specialist training programmes to inform future design of a simulation based-curriculum. The secondary aims were to characterize; the types of simulation offered to trainees by stage of training, the sources of funding for simulation, the barriers to providing simulation in training, and to measure current research activity assessing the educational impact of simulation. Methods. The development of the survey was a collaborative effort between the authors and the British Orthopaedic Association Simulation Group. The survey items were embedded in the Performance and Opportunity Dashboard, which annually audits quality in training across several domains on behalf of the Speciality Advisory Committee (SAC). The survey was sent via email to the 30 training programme directors in March 2019. Data were retrieved and analyzed at the Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Results. Overall, 28 of 30 programme directors completed the survey (93%). 82% of programmes had access to high-fidelity simulation facilities such as cadaveric laboratories. More than half (54%) had access to a non-technical skills simulation training. Less than half (43%) received centralized funding for simulation, a third relied on local funding such as the departmental budget, and there was a heavy reliance on industry sponsorship to partly or wholly fund simulation training (64%). Provision was higher in the mid-stages (ST3-5) compared to late-stages (ST6-8) of training, and was formally timetabled in 68% of prostgrammes. There was no assessment of the impact of simulation training using objective behavioural measures or real-world clinical outcomes. Conclusion. There is currently widespread, but variable, provision of simulation in T&O training in the UK and RoI, which is likely to expand further with the new curriculum. It is important that research activity into the impact of simulation training continues, to develop an evidence base to support investment in facilities and provision

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280

Objectives. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty. Non-contact induction heating of metal implants is a new and emerging treatment for PJI. However, there may be concerns for potential tissue necrosis. It is thought that segmental induction heating can be used to control the thermal dose and to limit collateral thermal injury to the bone and surrounding tissues. The purpose of this study was to determine the thermal dose, for commonly used metal implants in orthopaedic surgery, at various distances from the heating centre (HC). Methods. Commonly used metal orthopaedic implants (hip stem, intramedullary nail, and locking compression plate (LCP)) were heated segmentally using an induction heater. The thermal dose was expressed in cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C (CEM43) and measured with a thermal camera at several different distances from the HC. A value of 16 CEM43 was used as the threshold for thermal damage in bone. Results. Despite high thermal doses at the HC (7161 CEM43 to 66 640 CEM43), the thermal dose at various distances from the HC was lower than 16 CEM43 for the hip stem and nail. For the fracture plate without corresponding metal screws, doses higher than 16 CEM43 were measured up to 5 mm from the HC. Conclusion. Segmental induction heating concentrates the thermal dose at the targeted metal implant areas and minimizes collateral thermal injury by using the non-heated metal as a heat sink. Implant type and geometry are important factors to consider, as they influence dissipation of heat and associated collateral thermal injury. Cite this article: B. G. Pijls, I. M. J. G. Sanders, E. J. Kuijper, R. G. H. H. Nelissen. Segmental induction heating of orthopaedic metal implants. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:609–619. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.711.BJR-2018-0080.R1

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting to nine centres over a 50-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 19 April 2020) with a minimum of 50 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, priority (urgent or elective), procedure type, COVID-19 status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. Results. During the study period, 1,659 procedures were performed in 1,569 patients. There were 68 (4.3%) patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. There were 85 (5.4%) deaths postoperatively. Patients who had COVID-19 had a significantly lower survival rate when compared with those without a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection (67.6% vs 95.8%, p < 0.001). When adjusting for confounding variables (older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.004), hip fracture (p = 0.003), and increasing ASA grade (p < 0.001)) a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; p = 0.014). A total of 62 patients developed COVID-19 postoperatively, of which two were in the elective and 60 were in the urgent group. Patients aged > 77 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.16; p = 0.001), with increasing ASA grade (OR 2.74; p < 0.001), sustaining a hip (OR 4.56; p = 0.008) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 14.70; p < 0.001) were more likely to develop COVID-19 postoperatively. Conclusion. Perioperative COVID-19 nearly doubled the background postoperative mortality risk following surgery. Patients at risk of developing COVID-19 postoperatively (patients > 77 years, increasing morbidity, sustaining a hip or periprosthetic fracture) may benefit from perioperative shielding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1774–1781

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery. Materials and Methods. We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale. Results. The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding. Conclusion. It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416–23

Aims. The aims of this systematic review were to describe the quantity and methodological quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery published during the last 17 years. Materials and Methods. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed, between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2016, were searched for meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery dealing with at least one surgical intervention. Meta-analyses were included if the interventions involved a human muscle, ligament, bone or joint. Results. A total of 392 meta-analyses met eligibility criteria, for which the mean AMSTAR quality score was 7.1/11. There was a positive correlation between the year of publication and the quality of the meta-analysis (r = 0.238, p < 0.001). Between 2000 and 2011, the mean AMSTAR score corresponded to that of a medium quality review. However, between 2012 and 2016, the mean scores have been consistently equivalent to those of a high-quality review. The number of meta-analyses published increased 10-fold between 2005 and 2014. Conclusion. The quantity and quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery which have been published has increased, reaching a plateau in 2012. Methodological flaws remain to be addressed in future meta-analyses in order to continue increasing the quality of the orthopaedic literature. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1270–4

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(8):494–496.

This annotation briefly reviews the history of artificial intelligence and machine learning in health care and orthopaedics, and considers the role it will have in the future, particularly with reference to statistical analyses involving large datasets. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1476–1478

Objectives. Bioresorbable orthopaedic devices with calcium phosphate (CaP) fillers are commercially available on the assumption that increased calcium (Ca) locally drives new bone formation, but the clinical benefits are unknown. Electron beam (EB) irradiation of polymer devices has been shown to enhance the release of Ca. The aims of this study were to: 1) establish the biological safety of EB surface-modified bioresorbable devices; 2) test the release kinetics of CaP from a polymer device; and 3) establish any subsequent beneficial effects on bone repair in vivo. Methods. ActivaScrew Interference (Bioretec Ltd, Tampere, Finland) and poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) orthopaedic screws containing 10 wt% β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) underwent EB treatment. In vitro degradation over 36 weeks was investigated by recording mass loss, pH change, and Ca release. Implant performance was investigated in vivo over 36 weeks using a lapine femoral condyle model. Bone growth and osteoclast activity were assessed by histology and enzyme histochemistry. Results. Calcium release doubled in the EB-treated group before returning to a level seen in untreated samples at 28 weeks. Extensive bone growth was observed around the perimeter of all implant types, along with limited osteoclastic activity. No statistically significant differences between comparative groups was identified. Conclusion. The higher than normal dose of EB used for surface modification did not adversely affect tissue response around implants in vivo. Surprisingly, incorporation of β-TCP and the subsequent accelerated release of Ca had no significant effect on in vivo implant performance, calling into question the clinical evidence base for these commercially available devices. Cite this article: I. Palmer, S. A. Clarke, F. J Buchanan. Enhanced release of calcium phosphate additives from bioresorbable orthopaedic devices using irradiation technology is non-beneficial in a rabbit model: An animal study. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:266–274. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0224.R2