Aims. To assess the impact of the declaration of the state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of visits to a traumatology emergency department (ED), and on their severity. Methods. Retrospective observational study. All visits to a traumatology ED were recorded, except for consultations for genitourinary, ocular and abdominal trauma and other ailments that did not have a musculoskeletal aetiology. Visit data were collected from March 14 to April 13 2020, and were subsequently compared with the visits recorded during the same periods in the previous two years. Results. The number of visits dropped from a mean of 3,212 in 2018 to 2019 to 445 in 2020. Triage 1 to 3 level visits rose from 21.6% in 2018 to 2019% to 40.4% in 2020, meaning a reduction in minor injury visits and an increase in major ones. There was a relative reduction of 13.2% in femoral fractures in the elderly. The rate of justified visits rose from 22.3% to 48.1%. Conclusion. A marked drop in the total number of visits to our traumatology ED was observed, as well as a relative increase in major injury visits and a relative fall in the minor ones. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:617–620

Aims

The aim of this study was to create artificial intelligence (AI) software with the purpose of providing a second opinion to physicians to support distal radius fracture (DRF) detection, and to compare the accuracy of fracture detection of physicians with and without software support.

Aims. In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) can request radiographs. After a radiologically diagnosed fracture, patients are immediately referred to the emergency department (ED). Since 2020, the Máxima Medical Centre has implemented a new care pathway for minor trauma patients, referring them immediately to the traumatology outpatient clinic (OC) instead of the ED. We investigated whether this altered care pathway leads to a reduction in healthcare consumption and concomitant costs. Methods. In this retrospective cohort study, patients were included if a radiologist diagnosed a fracture on a radiograph requested by the GP from August to October 2019 (control group) or August to October 2020 (research group), on weekdays between 8.30 am and 4.00 pm. The study compared various outcomes between groups, including the length of the initial hospital visit, frequency of hospital visits and medical procedures, extent of imaging, and healthcare expenses. Results. A total of 634 patients were included. The results show a median reduction of 25 minutes in duration of initial hospital visits, one fewer hospital visit, overall fewer medical procedures, and a decrease in healthcare costs of €303.40 per patient in the research group compared to the control group. No difference was found in the amount of imaging. Conclusion. The implementation of the new care pathway has resulted in a substantial reduction in healthcare use and costs. Moreover, the pathway provides advantages for patients and helps prevent crowding at the ED. Hence, we recommend immediately referring all minor trauma patients to the traumatology OC instead of the ED. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):728–734

1. The history of microvascular surgery is reviewed; the necessary instruments and the technique of suture are described. 2. Modern trends in the experimental and clinical applications in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology are discussed. 3. The authors emphasise the usefulness of this technique in tissue transplantation and in the reconstruction of microvascular injuries of the musculoskeletal system

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

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