Aims. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence of hip fracture has not changed. Evidence has shown increased mortality rates associated with COVID-19 infection. However, little is known about the outcomes of COVID-19 negative patients in a pandemic environment. In addition, the impact of vitamin D levels on mortality in COVID-19 hip fracture patients has yet to be determined. Methods. This multicentre observational study included 1,633 patients who sustained a hip fracture across nine hospital trusts in North West England. Data were collected for three months from March 2020 and for the same period in 2019. Patients were matched by Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), hospital, and fracture type. We looked at the mortality outcomes of COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients sustaining a hip fracture. We also looked to see if vitamin D levels had an impact on mortality. Results. The demographics of the 2019 and 2020 groups were similar, with a slight increase in proportion of male patients in the 2020 group. The 30-day mortality was 35.6% in COVID-19 positive patients and 7.8% in the COVID-19 negative patients. There was a potential association of decreasing vitamin D levels and increasing mortality rates for COVID-19 positive patients although our findings did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. In 2020 there was a significant increase in 30-day mortality rates of patients who were COVID-19 positive but not of patients who were COVID-19 negative. Low levels of vitamin D may be associated with high mortality rates in COVID-19 positive patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):782–787

Aims. Hip fracture patients are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness, and admission into hospital puts them at further risk. We implemented a two-site orthopaedic trauma service, with ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’ hubs, to deliver urgent and infection-controlled trauma care for hip fracture patients, while increasing bed capacity for medical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A vacated private elective surgical centre was repurposed to facilitate a two-site, ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’, hip fracture service. Patients were screened for COVID-19 infection and either kept at our ‘COVID’ site or transferred to our ‘COVID-free’ site. We collected data for 30 days on patient demographics, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores (NHFS), time to surgery, COVID-19 status, mortality, and length of stay (LOS). Results. In all, 47 hip fracture patients presented to our service: 12 were admitted to the ‘COVID’ site and 35 to the ‘COVID-free’ site. The ‘COVID’ site cohort were older (mean 86.8 vs 78.5 years, p = 0.0427) and with poorer CFS (p = 0.0147) and NHFS (p = 0.0023) scores. At the ‘COVID-free’ site, mean time to surgery was less (29.8 vs 52.8 hours, p = 0.0146), and mean LOS seemed shorter (8.7 vs 12.6 days, p = 0.0592). No patients tested positive for COVID-19 infection while at the ‘COVID-free’ site. We redirected 74% of our admissions from the base ‘COVID’ site and created 304 inpatient days’ capacity for medical COVID patients. Conclusion. Acquisition of unused elective orthopaedic capacity from the private sector facilitated a two-site trauma service. Patients were treated expeditiously, while successfully achieving strict infection control. We achieved significant gains in medical bed capacity in response to the COVID-19 demand. The authors propose the repurposing of unused elective operating facilities for a two-site ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’ model as a safe and effective way of managing hip fracture patients during the pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:190–197

Aims. COVID-19 has changed the practice of orthopaedics across the globe. The medical workforce has dealt with this outbreak with varying strategies and adaptations, which are relevant to its field and to the region. As one of the ‘hotspots’ in the UK , the surgical branch of trauma and orthopaedics need strategies to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of COVID-19. Methods. Adapting to the crisis locally involved five operational elements: 1) triaging and workflow of orthopaedic patients; 2) operation theatre feasibility and functioning; 3) conservation of human resources and management of workforce in the department; 4) speciality training and progression; and 5) developing an exit strategy to resume elective work. Two hospitals under our trust were redesignated based on the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Registrar/consultant led telehealth reviews were carried out for early postoperative patients. Workflows for the management of outpatient care and inpatient care were created. We looked into the development of a dedicated operating space to perform the emergency orthopaedic surgeries without symptoms of COVID-19. Between March 23 and April 23, 2020, we have surgically treated 133 patients across both our hospitals in our trust. This mainly included hip fractures and fractures/infection affecting the hand. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic is not the first disease outbreak affecting the UK, nor will it be the last. The current crisis has necessitated rapid development of new hospital guidelines and early adaptive strategies in our services. Protocols and directives need to be formalized keeping in mind that COVID-19 will have a long and protracted course until a definitive cure is discovered

Introduction

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a rapidly implemented restructuring of UK healthcare services. The The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, became a central hub for the provision of trauma services for North Central/East London (NCEL) while providing a musculoskeletal tumour service for the south of England, the Midlands, and Wales and an urgent spinal service for London. This study reviews our paediatric practice over this period in order to share our experience and lessons learned. Our hospital admission pathways are described and the safety of surgical and interventional radiological procedures performed under general anaesthesia (GA) with regards to COVID-19 in a paediatric population are evaluated.

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication.

In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians.

Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41.

Osteoporosis is common and the health and financial cost of fragility fractures is considerable. The burden of cardiovascular disease has been reduced dramatically by identifying and targeting those most at risk. A similar approach is potentially possible in the context of fragility fractures. The World Health Organization created and endorsed the use of FRAX, a fracture risk assessment tool, which uses selected risk factors to calculate a quantitative, patient-specific, ten-year risk of sustaining a fragility fracture. Treatment can thus be based on this as well as on measured bone mineral density. It may also be used to determine at-risk individuals, who should undergo bone densitometry. FRAX has been incorporated into the national osteoporosis guidelines of countries in the Americas, Europe, the Far East and Australasia. The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also advocates its use in their guidance on the assessment of the risk of fragility fracture, and it may become an important tool to combat the health challenges posed by fragility fractures.

We report the results of six trauma and orthopaedic projects to Kenya in the last three years. The aims are to deliver both a trauma service and teaching within two hospitals; one a district hospital near Mount Kenya in Nanyuki, the other the largest public hospital in Kenya in Mombasa. The Kenya Orthopaedic Project team consists of a wide range of multidisciplinary professionals that allows the experience to be shared across those specialties. A follow-up clinic is held three months after each mission to review the patients. To our knowledge there are no reported outcomes in the literature for similar projects.

A total of 211 operations have been performed and 400 patients seen during the projects. Most cases were fractures of the lower limb; we have been able to follow up 163 patients (77%) who underwent surgical treatment. We reflect on the results so far and discuss potential improvements for future missions.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of intermittent mechanical compression combined with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, against either mechanical compression or pharmacological prophylaxis in preventing deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing hip or knee replacement. A total of six randomised controlled trials, evaluating a total of 1399 patients, were identified. In knee arthroplasty, the rate of DVT was reduced from 18.7% with anticoagulation alone to 3.7% with combined modalities (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, p = 0.03; number needed to treat: seven). There was moderate, albeit non-significant, heterogeneity (I² = 42%). In hip replacement, there was a non-significant reduction in DVT from 8.7% with mechanical compression alone to 7.2% with additional pharmacological prophylaxis (RR 0.84) and a significant reduction in DVT from 9.7% with anticoagulation alone to 0.9% with additional mechanical compression (RR 0.17, p < 0.001; number needed to treat: 12), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The included studies had insufficient power to demonstrate an effect on pulmonary embolism.

We conclude that the addition of intermittent mechanical leg compression augments the efficacy of anticoagulation in preventing DVT in patients undergoing both knee and hip replacement. Further research on the role of combined modalities in thromboprophylaxis in joint replacement and in other high-risk situations, such as fracture of the hip, is warranted.

Over a 13-year period we studied all patients who underwent major hip and knee surgery and were diagnosed with objectively confirmed symptomatic venous thromboembolism, either deep venous thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism, within six months after surgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin had been given while the patients were in hospital. There were 5607 patients. The cumulative incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism was 2.7% (150 of 5607), of which 1.1% had developed pulmonary embolism, 1.5% had deep venous thrombosis and 0.6% had both. Patients presented with deep venous thrombosis at a median of 24 days and pulmonary embolism at 17 days after surgery for hip fracture. After total hip replacement, deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism occurred at a median of 21 and 34 days respectively. After total knee replacement, the median time to the presentation of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism was 20 and 12 days respectively. The cumulative risk of venous thromboembolism lasted for up to three months after hip surgery and for one month after total knee replacement. Venous thromboembolism was diagnosed after discharge from hospital in 70% of patients who developed this complication. Despite hospital-based thromboprophylaxis, most cases of clinical venous thromboembolism occur after discharge and at different times according to the operation performed