Aims. Surgery is often indicated in patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) to improve pain and maximize function. Few studies are available which report on clinically meaningful outcomes such as quality of life, function, and pain relief after surgery for MBD. This is the published protocol for the Bone Metastasis Audit — Patient Reported Outcomes (BoMA-PRO) multicentre MBD study. The primary objective is to ascertain patient-reported quality of life at three to 24 months post-surgery for MBD. Methods. This will be a prospective, longitudinal study across six UK orthopaedic centres powered to identify the influence of ten patient variables on quality of life at three months after surgery for MBD. Adult patients managed for bone metastases will be screened by their treating consultant and posted out participant materials. If they opt in to participate, they will receive questionnaire packs at regular intervals from three to 24 months post-surgery and their electronic records will be screened until death or five years from recruitment. The primary outcome is quality of life as measured by the European Organisation for Research and the Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ) C30 questionnaire. The protocol has been approved by the Newcastle & North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (REC ref 19/NE/0303) and the study is funded by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow (RCPSG) and the Association for Cancer Surgery (BASO-ACS). Discussion. This will be the first powered study internationally to investigate patient-reported outcomes after orthopaedic treatment for bone metastases. We will assess quality of life, function, and pain relief at three to 24 months post-surgery and identify which patient variables are significantly associated with a good outcome after MBD treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):79–85

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a swift adoption of telehealth in orthopaedic surgery. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction of patients and surgeons with the rapid expansion of telehealth at this time within the division of adult reconstructive surgery at a major urban academic tertiary hospital. Methods. A total of 334 patients underging arthroplasty of the hip or knee who completed a telemedicine visit between 30 March and 30 April 2020 were sent a 14-question survey, scored on a five-point Likert scale. Eight adult reconstructive surgeons who used telemedicine during this time were sent a separate 14-question survey at the end of the study period. Factors influencing patient satisfaction were determined using univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression modelling. Results. A total of 68 patients (20.4%) and 100% of the surgeons completed the surveys. Patients were “Satisfied” with their telemedicine visits (4.10/5.00 (SD 0.98)) and 19 (27.9%) would prefer telemedicine to in-person visits in the absence of COVID-19. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression modelling revealed that patients were more likely to be satisfied if their surgeon effectively responded to their questions or concerns (odds ratio (OR) 3.977; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.260 to 13.190; p = 0.019) and if their visit had a high audiovisual quality (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.052 to 6.219; p = 0.042). Surgeons were “Satisfied” with their telemedicine experience (3.63/5.00 (SD 0.92)) and were “Fairly Confident” (4.00/5.00 (SD 0.53)) in their diagnostic accuracy despite finding the physical examinations to be only “Slightly Effective” (1.88/5.00 (SD 0.99)). Most adult reconstructive surgeons, seven of eight (87.5%) would continue to use telemedicine in the future. Conclusion. Telemedicine emerged as a valuable tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients undergoing arthroplasty and their surgeons were satisfied with telemedicine and see a role for its use after the pandemic. The audiovisual quality and the responsiveness of physicians to the concerns of patients determine their satisfaction. Future investigations should focus on improving the physical examination of patients through telemedicine and strategies for its widespread implementation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):196–204

Aims. The purpose of this study was to assess total knee arthroplasty (TKA) volume and rates of early complications in morbidly obese patients over the last decade, where the introduction of quality models influencing perioperative care pathways occurred. Methods. Patients undergoing TKA between 2011 to 2018 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were stratified by BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. and ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. and evaluated by the number of cases per year. The 30-day rates of any complication, wound complications, readmissions, and reoperation were assessed. Trends in these endpoints over the study period were compared between groups using odds ratios (ORs) and multivariate analyses. Results. In total, 314,695 patients underwent TKA and 46,362 (15%) had BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. The prevalence of morbid obesity among TKA patients did not change greatly, ranging between 14% and 16%. Reoperation rate decreased from 1.16% to 0.96% (odds ratio (OR) 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.99)) for patients with BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. , as did rates of readmission (4.46% to 2.87%; OR 0.61 (0.55 to 0.69)). Patients with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. also had fewer readmissions over the study period (4.87% to 3.34%; OR 0.64 (0.49 to 0.83)); however, the rate of reoperation did not change (1.37% to 1.41%; OR 0.99 (0.62 to 1.56)). Significant improvements were not observed for infective complications over time for either group; patients with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. had increased risk of both deep infection and wound complications compared to non-morbidly obese patients. Rate of any complication decreased for all patients. Conclusion. The proportion of TKAs in morbidly obese patients has not significantly changed over the past decade. Although readmission rates improved for all patients, reductions in reoperation in non-morbidly obese patients were not experienced by the morbidly obese, resulting in a widening of the complication gap between these cohorts. Care improvements have not lowered the differential risk of infective complications in the morbidly obese. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):38–44

Aims. Scapular notching is thought to have an adverse effect on the outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). However, the matter is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of scapular notching on outcomes after RTSA. Methods. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE) were searched for studies which evaluated the influence of scapular notching on clinical outcome after RTSA. The quality of each study was assessed. Functional outcome scores (the Constant-Murley scores (CMS), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores), and postoperative range of movement (forward flexion (FF), abduction, and external rotation (ER)) were extracted and subjected to meta-analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). Results. In all, 11 studies (two level III and nine level IV) were included in the meta-analysis. All analyzed variables indicated that scapular notching has a negative effect on the outcome of RTSA . Statistical significance was found for the CMS (WMD –3.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.98 to –1.23), the ASES score (WMD –6.50; 95% CI –10.80 to –2.19), FF (WMD –6.3°; 95% CI –9.9° to –2.6°), and abduction (WMD –9.4°; 95% CI –17.8° to –1.0°), but not for ER (WMD –0.6°; 95% CI –3.7° to 2.5°). Conclusion. The current literature suggests that patients with scapular notching after RTSA have significantly worse results when evaluated by the CMS, ASES score, and range of movement in flexion and abduction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1438–1445

Aims. It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons. Methods. This retrospective study involved patients who underwent aseptic unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019, using the database of a large urban academic medical centre. Surgeons who performed ≥ 19 aseptic rTKAs per year during the study period were considered HV and those who performed < 19 per year were considered LV. Demographic characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. A total of 308 rTKAs were identified, 132 performed by HV surgeons and 176 by 22 LV surgeons. The LV group had a significantly greater proportion of non-smokers (59.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.029). For all types of revision, HV surgeons had significantly shorter mean operating times by 17.75 minutes (p = 0.007). For the 169 full revisions (85 HV, 84 LV), HV surgeons had significantly shorter operating times (131.12 (SD 33.78) vs 171.65 (SD 49.88) minutes; p < 0.001), significantly lower re-revision rates (7.1% vs 19.0%; p = 0.023) and significantly fewer re-revisions (0.07 (SD 0.26) vs 0.29 (SD 0.74); p = 0.017). Conclusion. Patients of HV rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following full rTKA. These findings support the development of revision teams within arthroplasty centres of excellence to offer patients the best possible outcomes following rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):131–136

Aims. There is a paucity of long-term studies analyzing risk factors for failure after single-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the mid- to long-term septic and non-septic failure rate of single-stage revision for PJI after THA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 88 cases which met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. Mean follow-up was seven years (1 to 14). Septic failure was diagnosed with a Delphi-based consensus definition. Any reoperation for mechanical causes in the absence of evidence of infection was considered as non-septic failure. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate factors associated with septic and non-septic failures. A Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to analyze mortality. Results. The cumulative incidence of septic failure was 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 15) at one year, 13.8% (95% CI 7.6 to 22) at two years, and 19.7% (95% CI 12 to 28.6) at five and ten years of follow-up. A femoral bone defect worse than Paprosky IIIA (hazard ratio (HR) 13.58 (95% CI 4.86 to 37.93); p < 0.001) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m. 2. ; HR 3.88 (95% CI 1.49 to 10.09); p = 0.005) were significantly associated with septic failure. Instability and periprosthetic fracture were the most common reasons for mechanical failure (5.7% and 4.5%, respectively). The cumulative incidence of aseptic failure was 2% (95% CI 0.4 to 7) at two years, 9% (95% CI 4 to 17) at five years, and 12% (95% CI 5 to 22) at ten years. A previous revision to treat PJI was significantly associated with non-septic failure (HR 9.93 (95% CI 1.77 to 55.46); p = 0.009). At the five-year timepoint, 93% of the patients were alive (95% CI 84% to 96%), which fell to 86% (95% CI 75% to 92%) at ten-year follow-up. Conclusion. Massive femoral bone loss was associated with greater chances of developing a further septic failure. All septic failures occurred within the first five years following the one-stage exchange. Surgeons should be aware of instability and periprosthetic fracture being potential causes of further aseptic revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1247–1253

Aims. Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) remains an effective intervention to address restricted range of motion (ROM) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and occurs in 2% to 3% of primary TKAs at our institution. Since there are few data on the outcomes of MUA with different anaesthetic methods, we sought to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing MUA with intravenous (IV) sedation and neuraxial anaesthesia. Methods. We identified 548 MUAs after primary TKA (136 IV sedation, 412 neuraxial anaesthesia plus IV sedation) from March 2016 to July 2019. The mean age of this cohort was 62 years (35 to 88) with a mean body mass index of 31 kg/m. 2. (18 to 49). The mean time from primary TKA to MUA was 10.2 weeks (6.2 to 24.3). Pre-MUA ROM was similar between groups; overall mean pre-MUA extension was 4.2° (p = 0.452) and mean pre-MUA flexion was 77° (p = 0.372). We compared orthopaedic complications, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, length of stay (LOS), and immediate and three-month follow-up knee ROM between these groups. Results. Following MUA, patients with IV sedation had higher mean VAS pain scores of 5.2 (SD 1.8) compared to 4.1 (SD = 1.5) in the neuraxial group (p < 0.001). The mean LOS was shorter in patients that received IV sedation (9.5 hours (4 to 31)) compared to neuraxial anaesthesia (11.9 hours (4 to 51)) (p = 0.009), but an unexpected overnight stay was similar in each group (8.6%). Immediate-post MUA ROM was 1° to 121° in the IV sedation group and 0.9° to 123° in the neuraxial group (p = 0.313). Three-month follow-up ROM was 2° to 108° in the IV sedation group and 1.9° to 110° in the neuraxial anaesthesia group (p = 0.325) with a mean loss of 13° (ranging from 5° gain to 60° loss), in both groups by three months. No patients in either group sustained a complication. Conclusion. IV sedation alone and neuraxial anaesthesia are both effective anaesthetic methods for MUA after primary TKA. Surgeons and anaesthetists should offer these anaesthetic techniques to match patient-specific needs as the orthopaedic outcomes are similar. Also, patients should be counselled that ROM following MUA may decrease over time. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):126–130

Aims. While preoperative bloodwork is routinely ordered, its value in determining which patients are at risk of postoperative readmission following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine which routinely ordered preoperative blood markers have the strongest association with acute hospital readmission for patients undergoing elective TKA and THA. Methods. Two population-based retrospective cohorts were assembled for all adult primary elective TKA (n = 137,969) and THA (n = 78,532) patients between 2011 to 2018 across 678 North American hospitals using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Programme (ACS-NSQIP) registry. Six routinely ordered preoperative blood markers - albumin, haematocrit, platelet count, white blood cell count (WBC), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and sodium level - were queried. The association between preoperative blood marker values and all-cause readmission within 30 days of surgery was compared using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression adjusted for relevant patient and treatment factors. Results. The mean TKA age was 66.6 years (SD 9.6) with 62% being females (n = 85,163/137,969), while in the THA cohort the mean age was 64.7 years (SD 11.4) with 54% being female (n = 42,637/78,532). In both cohorts, preoperative hypoalbuminemia (< 35 g/l) was associated with a 1.5- and 1.8-times increased odds of 30-day readmission following TKA and THA, respectively. In TKA patients, decreased eGFR demonstrated the strongest association with acute readmission with a standardized odds ratio of 0.75 per two standard deviations increase (p < 0.0001). Conclusion. In this population level cohort analysis of arthroplasty patients, low albumin demonstrated the strongest association with acute readmission in comparison to five other commonly ordered preoperative blood markers. Identification and optimization of preoperative hypoalbuminemia could help healthcare providers recognize and address at-risk patients undergoing TKA and THA. This is the most comprehensive and rigorous examination of the association between preoperative blood markers and readmission for TKA and THA patients to date. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):388–396

Aims. Prior studies have identified that malseating of a modular dual mobility liner can occur, with previous reported incidences between 5.8% and 16.4%. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of malseating in dual mobility implants at our institution, assess for risk factors for liner malseating, and investigate whether liner malseating has any impact on clinical outcomes after surgery. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the radiographs of 239 primary and revision total hip arthroplasties with a modular dual mobility liner. Two independent reviewers assessed radiographs for each patient twice for evidence of malseating, with a third observer acting as a tiebreaker. Univariate analysis was conducted to determine risk factors for malseating with Youden’s index used to identify cut-off points. Cohen’s kappa test was used to measure interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Results. In all, 12 liners (5.0%), including eight Stryker (6.8%) and four Zimmer Biomet (3.3%), had radiological evidence of malseating. Interobserver reliability was found to be 0.453 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.64), suggesting weak inter-rater agreement, with strong agreement being greater than 0.8. We found component size of 50 mm or less to be associated with liner malseating on univariate analysis (p = 0.031). Patients with malseated liners appeared to have no associated clinical consequences, and none required revision surgery at a mean of 14 months (1.4 to 99.2) postoperatively. Conclusion. The incidence of liner malseating was 5.0%, which is similar to other reports. Component size of 50 mm or smaller was identified as a risk factor for malseating. Surgeons should be aware that malseating can occur and implant design changes or changes in instrumentation should be considered to lower the risk of malseating. Although further follow-up is needed, it remains to be seen if malseating is associated with any clinical consequences. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):858–864

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228

Aims. Cauda equina syndrome (CES) can be associated with chronic severe lower back pain and long-term autonomic dysfunction. This study assesses the recently defined core outcome set for CES in a cohort of patients using validated questionnaires. Methods. Between January 2005 and December 2019, 82 patients underwent surgical decompression for acute CES secondary to massive lumbar disc prolapse at our hospital. After review of their records, patients were included if they presented with the clinical and radiological features of CES, then classified as CES incomplete (CESI) or with painless urinary retention (CESR) in accordance with guidelines published by the British Association of Spinal Surgeons. Patients provided written consent and completed a series of questionnaires. Results. In total, 61 of 82 patients returned a completed survey. Their mean age at presentation was 43 years (20 to 77; SD 12.7), and the mean duration of follow-up 58.2 months (11 to 182; SD 45.3). Autonomic dysfunction was frequent: 33% of patients reported bladder dysfunction, and 10% required a urinary catheter. There was a 38% and 53% incidence of bowel and sexual dysfunction, respectively: 47% of patients reported genital numbness. A total of 67% reported significant back pain: 44% required further investigation and 10% further intervention for the management of lower back pain. Quality of life was lower than expected when corrected for age and sex. Half the patients reported moderate or worse depression, and 40% of patients of working age could no longer work due to problems attributable to CES. Urinary and faecal incontinence, catheter use, sexual dysfunction, and genital numbness were significantly more common in patients with CESR. Conclusion. This study reports the long-term outcome of patients with CES and is the first to use validated patient-reported outcome measures to assess the CES Core Outcome Set. Persistent severe back pain and on-going autonomic dysfunction were frequently reported at a mean follow-up of five years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1464–1471