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.

Abstract

The medial malleolus, once believed to be the primary stabilizer of the ankle, has been the topic of conflicting clinical and biomechanical data for many decades. Despite the relevant surgical anatomy being understood for almost 40 years, the optimal treatment of medial malleolar fractures remains unclear, whether the injury occurs in isolation or as part of an unstable bi- or trimalleolar fracture configuration. Traditional teaching recommends open reduction and fixation of medial malleolar fractures that are part of an unstable injury. However, there is recent evidence to suggest that nonoperative management of well-reduced fractures may result in equivalent outcomes, but without the morbidity associated with surgery. This review gives an update on the relevant anatomy and classification systems for medial malleolar fractures and an overview of the current literature regarding their management, including surgical approaches and the choice of implants.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:512–521.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the current evidence relating to the benefits of virtual reality (VR) simulation in orthopaedic surgical training, and to identify areas of future research.

Primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a reliable procedure with reproducible long-term results. Nevertheless, there are conditions related to the type of patient or local conditions of the knee that can make it a difficult procedure. The most common scenarios that make it difficult are discussed in this review. These include patients with many previous operations and incisions, and those with severe coronal deformities, genu recurvatum, a stiff knee, extra-articular deformities and those who have previously undergone osteotomy around the knee and those with chronic dislocation of the patella.

Each condition is analysed according to the characteristics of the patient, the pre-operative planning and the reported outcomes.

When approaching the difficult primary TKA surgeons should use a systematic approach, which begins with the review of the existing literature for each specific clinical situation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):30–9.

Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to be effective in reducing blood loss and the need for transfusion after joint replacement. Recently, there has been interest in applying it topically before the closure of surgical wounds. This has the advantages of ease of application, maximum concentration at the site of bleeding, minimising its systemic absorption and, consequently, concerns about possible side-effects.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 14 randomised controlled trials (11 in knee replacement, two in hip replacement and one in both) which investigated the effect of topical TXA on blood loss and rates of transfusion. Topical TXA significantly reduced the rate of blood transfusion (total knee replacement: risk ratio (RR) 4.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.02 to 6.72; p < 0.001 (nine trials, I² = 0%); total hip replacement: RR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.32 to 4.97, p = 0.004 (one trial)). The rate of thromboembolic events with topical TXA were similar to those found with a placebo. Indirect comparison of placebo-controlled trials of topical and intravenous TXA indicates that topical administration is superior to the intravenous route.

In conclusion, topical TXA is an effective and safe method of reducing the need for blood transfusion after total knee and hip replacement. Further research is required to find its optimum dose for topical use.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1005–15.