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.

Objectives

The paradoxical migration of the femoral neck element (FNE) superomedially against gravity, with respect to the intramedullary component of the cephalomedullary device, is a poorly understood phenomenon increasingly seen in the management of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the intramedullary nail. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of bidirectional loading on the medial migration phenomenon, based on unique wear patterns seen on scanning electron microscopy of retrieved implants suggestive of FNE toggling.

Objectives

External fixators are the traditional fixation method of choice for contaminated open fractures. However, patient acceptance is low due to the high profile and therefore physical burden of the constructs. An externalised locking compression plate is a low profile alternative. However, the biomechanical differences have not been assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the axial and torsional stiffness of the externalised titanium locking compression plate (ET-LCP), the externalised stainless steel locking compression plate (ESS-LCP) and the unilateral external fixator (UEF).

Management of bisphosphonate-associated subtrochanteric fractures remains opinion- or consensus-based. There are limited data regarding the outcomes of this fracture.

We retrospectively reviewed 33 consecutive female patients with a mean age of 67.5 years (47 to 91) who were treated surgically between May 2004 and October 2009. The mean follow-up was 21.7 months (0 to 53). Medical records and radiographs were reviewed to determine the post-operative ambulatory status, time to clinical and radiological union and post-fixation complications such as implant failure and need for second surgery.

The predominant fixation method was with an extramedullary device in 23 patients. 25 (75%) patients were placed on wheelchair mobilisation or no weight-bearing initially. The mean time to full weight-bearing was 7.1 months (2.2 to 29.7). The mean time for fracture site pain to cease was 6.2 months (1.2 to 17.1). The mean time to radiological union was 10.0 months (2.2 to 27.5). Implant failure was seen in seven patients (23%, 95 confidence interval (CI) 11.8 to 40.9). Revision surgery was required in ten patients (33%, 95 CI 19.2 to 51.2).

A large proportion of the patients required revision surgery and suffered implant failure. This fracture is associated with slow healing and prolonged post-operative immobility.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:658–64.

We carried out a retrospective review over ten months of patients who had presented with a low-energy subtrochanteric fracture. We identified 13 women of whom nine were on long-term alendronate therapy and four were not. The patients treated with alendronate were younger, with a mean age of 66.9 years (55 to 82) vs 80.3 years (64 to 92) and were more socially active. The fractures sustained by the patients in the alendronate group were mainly at the femoral metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction and many had occurred after minimal trauma. Five of these patients had prodromal pain in the affected hip in the months preceding the fall, and three demonstrated a stress reaction in the cortex in the contralateral femur.

Our study suggests that prolonged suppression of bone remodelling with alendronate may be associated with a new form of insufficiency fracture of the femur. We believe that this finding is important and indicates the need for caution in the long-term use of alendronate in the treatment of osteoporosis.