Despite being one of the most common injuries around the elbow, the optimal treatment of olecranon fractures is far from established and stimulates debate among both general orthopaedic trauma surgeons and upper limb specialists. It is almost universally accepted that stable non-displaced fractures can be safely treated nonoperatively with minimal specialist input. Internal fixation is recommended for the vast majority of displaced fractures, with a range of techniques and implants to choose from. However, there is concern regarding the complication rates, largely related to symptomatic metalwork resulting in high rates of implant removal. As the number of elderly patients sustaining these injuries increases, we are becoming more aware of the issues associated with fixation in osteoporotic bone and the often fragile soft-tissue envelope in this group. Given this, there is evidence to support an increasing role for nonoperative management in this high-risk demographic group, even in those presenting with displaced and/or multifragmentary fracture patterns. This review summarizes the available literature to date, focusing predominantly on the management techniques and available implants for stable fractures of the olecranon. It also offers some insights into the potential avenues for future research, in the hope of addressing some of the pertinent questions that remain unanswered. Cite this article:
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:
Episodic, or bundled payments, is a concept now
familiar to most in the healthcare arena, but the models are often
misunderstood. Under a traditional fee-for-service model, each provider
bills separately for their services which creates financial incentives
to maximise volumes. Under a bundled payment, a single entity, often
referred to as a convener (maybe the hospital, the physician group,
or a third party) assumes the risk through a payer contract for
all services provided within a defined episode of care, and receives
a single (bundled) payment for all services provided for that episode.
The time frame around the intervention is variable, but defined
in advance, as are included and excluded costs. Timing of the actual payment
in a bundle may either be before the episode occurs (prospective
payment model), or after the end of the episode through a reconciliation
(retrospective payment model). In either case, the defined costs
over the defined time frame are borne by the convener. Cite this article:
The patient with a painful arthritic knee awaiting
total knee arthroplasty (TKA) requires a multidisciplinary approach.
Optimal control of acute post-operative pain and the prevention
of chronic persistent pain remains a challenge. The aim of this
paper is to evaluate whether stratification of patients can help
identify those who are at particular risk for severe acute or chronic
pain. Intense acute post-operative pain, which is itself a risk factor
for chronic pain, is more common in younger, obese female patients
and those suffering from central pain sensitisation. Pre-operative
pain, in the knee or elsewhere in the body, predisposes to central
sensitisation. Pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee may also trigger
neuropathic pain and may be associated with chronic medication like
opioids, leading to a state of nociceptive sensitisation called
‘opioid-induced hyperalgesia’. Finally, genetic and personality
related risk factors may also put patients at a higher risk for
the development of chronic pain. Those identified as at risk for chronic pain would benefit from
specific peri-operative management including reduction in opioid
intake pre-operatively, the peri-operative use of antihyperalgesic
drugs such as ketamine and gabapentinoids, and a close post-operative
follow-up in a dedicated chronic pain clinic. Cite this article:
