Aims. The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. Methods. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed). Results. The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. Conclusion. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562–567

Aims. Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care. Methods. Questionnaires were sent to orthopaedic waiting list patients at the start of the UK’s first COVID-19 lockdown to capture key quantitative and qualitative aspects of patients’ health. A total of 888 respondents were divided into quintiles, with sampling stratified based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD); level 1 represented the ‘most deprived’ cohort and level 5 the ‘least deprived’. Results. The least deprived cohort were older (mean 65.95 years (SD 13.33)) than the most deprived (mean 59.48 years (SD 13.85)). Mean symptom duration was lower in the least deprived areas (68.59 months (SD 112.26)) compared to the most deprived (85.85 months (SD 122.50)). Mean pain visual analogue scores (VAS) were poorer in the most compared to the least deprived cohort (7.11 (SD 2.01) vs 5.99 (SD 2.57)), with mean mood scores also poorer (6.06 (SD 2.65) vs 4.71 (SD 2.78)). The most deprived areas exhibited lower mean quality of life (QoL) scores than the least (0.37 (SD 0.30) vs 0.53 (SD 0.31)). QoL findings correlated with health VAS and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD2) scores, with the most deprived areas experiencing poorer health (health VAS 50.82 (SD 26.42) vs 57.29 (SD 24.19); GAD2: 2.94 (SD 2.35) vs 1.88 (SD 2.07)). Least-deprived patients had the highest self-reported activity levels and lowest sedentary cohort, with the converse true for patients from the most deprived areas. Conclusion. The most deprived patients experience poorer physical and mental health, with this most adversely impacted by lengthy waiting list delays. Interventions to address inequalities should focus on prioritizing the most deprived. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):777–785

Aims. Waiting times for arthroplasty surgery in Northern Ireland are among the longest in the NHS, which have been further lengthened by the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic in March 2020. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland has announced a new Elective Care Framework (ECF), with the framework proposing that by March 2026 no patient will wait more than 52 weeks for inpatient/day case treatment. We aimed to assess the feasibility of achieving this with reference to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Mathematical modelling was undertaken to calculate when the ECF targets will be achieved for THA and TKA, as well as the time when waiting lists for THA and TKA will be cleared. The number of patients currently on the waiting list and percentage operating capacity relative to pre-COVID-19 capacity was used to determine future projections. Results. As of May 2021, there were 3,757 patients awaiting primary THA and 4,469 patients awaiting primary TKA in Northern Ireland. Prior to April 2020, there were a mean 2,346 (2,085 to 2,610) patients per annum boarded for primary THA, a mean 2,514 (2,494 to 2,514) patients per annum boarded for primary TKA, and there were a mean 1,554 primary THAs and 1,518 primary TKAs performed per annum. The ECF targets for THA will only be achieved in 2030 if operating capacity is 200% of pre COVID-19 pandemic capacity and in 2042 if capacity is 170%. For TKA, the targets will be met in 2034 if capacity is 200% of pre-COVID-19 pandemic capacity. Conclusion. This modelling demonstrates that, in the absence of major funding and reorganization of elective orthopaedic care, the targets set out in the ECF will not be achieved with regard to THA and TKA. Waiting times for THA and TKA surgery in Northern Ireland are likely to remain greater than 52 weeks for most of this decade. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):302–306

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)

The December 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Tissue integration and chondroprotective potential of acetabular labral augmentation with autograft tendon: study of a porcine model; The Irish National Orthopaedic Register under cyberattack: what happened, and what were the consequences?; An overview of machine learning in orthopaedic surgery: an educational paper; Beware of the fungus…; New evidence for COVID-19 in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery

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

The October 2024 Arthroplasty Roundup. 360. looks at: Breaking the mould: female representation in arthroplasty surgery remains low, with elbow leading the way; Post COVID-19: where are we with the 'catch up' in England and Wales?; Prevalence and clinical impact of sarcopenia in patients undergoing total joint replacement: a systematic review and a meta-analysis; Total joint replacement and sleep: the state of the evidence

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the risk of postoperative complications in COVID-19-positive patients undergoing common orthopaedic procedures. Methods. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) database, patients who underwent common orthopaedic surgery procedures from 1 January to 31 December 2021 were extracted. Patient preoperative COVID-19 status, demographics, comorbidities, type of surgery, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Propensity score matching was conducted between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Multivariable regression was then performed to identify both patient and provider risk factors independently associated with the occurrence of 30-day postoperative adverse events. Results. Of 194,121 included patients, 740 (0.38%) were identified to be COVID-19-positive. Comparison of comorbidities demonstrated that COVID-19-positive patients had higher rates of diabetes, heart failure, and pulmonary disease. After propensity matching and controlling for all preoperative variables, multivariable analysis found that COVID-19-positive patients were at increased risk of several postoperative complications, including: any adverse event, major adverse event, minor adverse event, death, venous thromboembolism, and pneumonia. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery were at increased risk of 30-day adverse events. Conclusion. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery had increased odds of many 30-day postoperative complications, with hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery being the most high-risk procedures. These data reinforce prior literature demonstrating increased risk of venous thromboembolic events in the acute postoperative period. Clinicians caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures should be mindful of these increased risks, and attempt to improve patient care during the ongoing global pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):704–712

The December 2024 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Skeletal muscle composition, power, and mitochondrial energetics in older men and women with knee osteoarthritis; Machine-learning models to predict osteonecrosis in patients with femoral neck fractures undergoing internal fixation; Aetiology of patient dissatisfaction following primary total knee arthroplasty in the era of robotic-assisted technology; Efficacy and safety of commonly used thromboprophylaxis agents following hip and knee arthroplasty; The COVID-19 effect continues; Nickel allergy in knee arthroplasty: does self-reported sensitivity affect outcomes?; Tranexamic acid use and joint infection risk in total hip and knee arthroplasty

The December 2024 Oncology Roundup. 360. looks at: Non-reversed great saphenous vein grafts for vascular reconstruction after resection of lower limb sarcoma; Detrimental effects of COVID-19 pandemic on patients with limb bone sarcoma: reference centre experience; Whole-body staging guidelines in sarcoma; Intraoperative marrow margin frozen section in limb bone sarcoma resection; Vacuum-assisted closure and paediatric oncological limb salvage; Treatment differences and long-term outcomes in adults and children with Ewing’s sarcoma; Survival, complications, and functional outcomes of uncemented distal femoral endoprosthesis with short, curved stem for patients with bone tumours

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events. Methods. A retrospective review of 124 consecutive primary arthroplasty procedures performed after resuming elective procedures on 11 May 2020 were compared to the previous 124 consecutive patients treated prior to 17 March 2020, at a single urban safety net hospital. Revision arthroplasty and patients with < 90-day follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome measures were hospital LOS and the number of SDDs. Secondary outcome measures included 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and 30day emergency department (ED) visits. Results. The mean LOS was significantly reduced from 2.02 days (SD 0.80) in the pre-COVID cohort to 1.03 days (SD 0.65) in the post-COVID cohort (p < 0.001). No patients in the pre-COVID group were discharged on the day of surgery compared to 60 patients (48.4%) in the post-COVID group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 90-day complications (13.7% (n = 17) vs 9.7% (n = 12); p = 0.429), 30-day ED visits (1.6% (n = 2) vs 3.2% (n = 4); p = 0.683), or 90-day readmissions (2.4% (n = 3) vs 1.6% (n = 2); p = 1.000) between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups, respectively. Conclusion. Through use of an ERP, arthroplasty procedures were successfully resumed at a safety net hospital with a shorter LOS and increased SDDs without a difference in acute adverse events. The resulting increase in healthcare value therefore may be considered a ‘silver lining’ to the moratorium on elective arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. These improved efficiencies are expected to continue in post-pandemic era. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):871–878

The June 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning did not outperform conventional competing risk modelling to predict revision arthroplasty; Unravelling the risks: incidence and reoperation rates for femoral fractures post-total hip arthroplasty; Spinal versus general anaesthesia for hip arthroscopy: a COVID-19 pandemic- and opioid epidemic-driven study; Development and validation of a deep-learning model to predict total hip arthroplasty on radiographs; Ambulatory centres lead in same-day hip and knee arthroplasty success; Exploring the impact of smokeless tobacco on total hip arthroplasty outcomes: a deeper dive into postoperative complications

The February 2025 Wrist & Hand Roundup. 360. looks at: Delayed fixation of distal radial fractures beyond three weeks increases the odds of reoperation; A systematic review of management options for symptomatic scaphometacarpal impingement after trapeziectomy; Diagnosing occult scaphoid fractures: an art or science?; Dual-mobility trapeziometacarpal arthroplasty shows promising outcomes but lacks long-term evidence; 3D-printed titanium scaphoid implant offers a promising alternative for unreconstructable scaphoid nonunion; Lidocaine co-injection reduces pain intensity during corticosteroid injections in hand and wrist conditions; Long-term outcomes of PyroDisk arthroplasty for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis; Evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on hand surgery practices: adaptations and missed opportunities

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is a prolonged episode of shoulder dysfunction that commences within 24 to 48 hours of a vaccination. Symptoms include a combination of shoulder pain, stiffness, and weakness. There has been a recent rapid increase in reported cases of SIRVA within the literature, particularly in adults, and is likely related to the mass vaccination programmes associated with COVID-19 and influenza. The pathophysiology is not certain, but placement of the vaccination in the subdeltoid bursa or other pericapsular tissue has been suggested to result in an inflammatory capsular process. It has been hypothesized that this is associated with a vaccine injection site that is “too high” and predisposes to the development of SIRVA. Nerve conduction studies are routinely normal, but further imaging can reveal deep-deltoid collections, rotator cuff tendinopathy and tears, or subacromial subdeltoid bursitis. However, all of these are common findings within a general asymptomatic population. Medicolegal claims in the UK, based on an incorrect injection site, are unlikely to meet the legal threshold to determine liability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):839–842

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

Aims. Hip fracture is a common condition of the older, frailer person. This population is also at risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is important to understand the impact of coexistent hip fracture and SARS-CoV-2 for informed decision-making at patient and service levels. Methods. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of older (> 60 years) people with fragility hip fractures and outcomes with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was early (30-day or in-hospital) mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and key clinical characteristics known to be associated with outcomes after hip fracture. Results. A total of 14 cohort and five case series studies were included (692 SARS-CoV-2 positive, 2,585 SARS-CoV-2 negative). SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an overall risk ratio (RR) for early mortality of 4.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.42 to 5.82). Early mortality was 34% (95% CI 30% to 38%) and 9% (95% CI 8% to 10%) in the infected and noninfected groups respectively. Length of stay was increased in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (mean difference (MD) 5.2 days (3.2 to 7.2)). Age (MD 1.6 years (0.3 to 2.9)); female sex (RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05)); admission from home (RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.00)); presence of dementia (RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.43)); and intracapsular fracture (RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.11)) were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. There were statistically, but not clinically, significantly greater Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores in infected compared with non-infected patients (MD 0.7 (0.4 to 0.9)). Conclusion. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with worse outcomes after hip fracture. This is not explained by differences in patient characteristics. These data can be used to support informed decision-making and may help track the impact of widespread adoption of system-level and therapeutic changes in management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):314–322

Aims. This observational study examines the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic upon the paediatric trauma burden of a district general hospital. We aim to compare the nature and volume of the paediatric trauma during the first 2020 UK lockdown period with the same period in 2019. Methods. Prospective data was collected from 23 March 2020 to 14 June 2020 and compared with retrospective data collected from 23 March 2019 to 14 June 2019. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, nature of the injury, and details of any surgery were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the independent-samples t-test for normally distributed data and the Mann-Whitney-U test for non-parametric data. Additionally, patients were contacted by telephone to further explore the mechanism of injury where required, to gain some qualitative insight into the risk factors for injury. Results. The 2020 lockdown resulted in 30% fewer paediatric trauma presentations (441 vs 306), but no significant change in the number of patients requiring surgery (47 vs 51; p = 0.686). Trampolining injuries increased in absolute numbers by 168% (p < 0.001), almost four times more common when considered as percentage of all injuries observed in 2020 vs 2019. There was a decrease in high energy trauma from road traffic accidents and falls from height (21.5% decrease, p < 0.001). Despite a shift towards more conservative treatment options, trampolining injuries continued to require surgery in similar proportions (19.4 vs 20%; p = 0.708). Qualitative investigation revealed that the most common risk factor for trampolining injury was concurrent usage, especially with an older child. Conclusion. COVID-19 lockdown has resulted in a decrease in paediatric orthopaedic presentations and high energy trauma. However, due to a marked increase in home trampolining injuries, and their unchanged requirement for surgery, there has been no change in the requirement for surgery during the lockdown period. As home exercise becomes more prevalent, a duty of public health falls upon clinicians to advise parents against trampoline usage. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):86–92

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

Aims. Day-case knee and hip replacement, in which patients are discharged on the day of surgery, has been gaining popularity during the last two decades, and particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review presents the evidence comparing day-case to inpatient-stay surgery. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature databases to include all studies which compare day-case with inpatient knee and hip replacement. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate using a random effects model. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42023392811). Results. A total of 38 studies were included, with a total of 83,888 day-case procedures. The studies were predominantly from the USA and Canada, observational, and with a high risk of bias. Day-case patients were a mean of 2.08 years younger (95% CI 1.05 to 3.12), were more likely to be male (odds ratio (OR) 1.3 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.41)), and had a lower mean BMI and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades compared with inpatients. Overall, day-case surgery was associated with significantly lower odds of readmission (OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.96); p = 0.009), subsequent emergency department attendance (OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.79); p < 0.001), and complications (OR 0.7 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.89) p = 0.004), than inpatient surgery. There were no significant differences in the rates of reoperation or mortality. The overall rate of successful same-day discharge for day-case surgery was 85% (95% CI 81 to 88). Patient-reported outcome measures and cost-effectiveness were either equal or favoured day-case. Conclusion. Within the limitations of the literature, in particular the substantial risk of selection bias, the outcomes following day-case knee and hip replacement appear not to be inferior to those following an inpatient stay. The evidence is more robust for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) than for total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR). The rate of successful same-day discharge is highest in UKR, followed by TKR and comparatively lower in THR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1385–1392

Aims. The purpose of our study was to determine which groups of orthopaedic providers favour virtual care, and analyze overall orthopaedic provider perceptions of virtual care. We hypothesize that providers with less clinical experience will favour virtual care, and that orthopaedic providers overall will show increased preference for virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic and decreased preference during non-pandemic circumstances. Methods. An orthopaedic research consortium at an academic medical system developed a survey examining provider perspectives regarding orthopaedic virtual care. Survey items were scored on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”) and compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. Results. Providers with less experience were more likely to recommend virtual care for follow-up visits (3.61 on the Likert scale (SD 0.95) vs 2.90 (SD 1.23); p = 0.006) and feel that virtual care was essential to patient wellbeing (3.98 (SD 0.95) vs 3.00 (SD 1.16); p < 0.001) during the pandemic. Less experienced providers also viewed virtual visits as providing a similar level of care as in-person visits (2.41 (SD 1.02) vs 1.76 (SD 0.87); p = 0.006) and more time-efficient than in-person visits (3.07 (SD 1.19) vs 2.34 (SD 1.14); p = 0.012) in non-pandemic circumstances. During the pandemic, most providers viewed virtual care as effective in providing essential care (83.6%, n = 51) and wanted to schedule patients for virtual care follow-up (82.2%, n = 50); only 10.9% (n = 8) of providers preferred virtual visits in non-pandemic circumstances. Conclusion. Orthopaedic providers with less clinical experience seem to favourably view virtual care both during the pandemic and under non-pandemic circumstances. Providers in general appear to view virtual care positively during the pandemic but are less accommodating towards it in non-pandemic circumstances. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):405–410