Aims. The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway. Methods. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative test was calculated using a lower-end RT-PCR sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 95%, and the UK disease prevalence of 0.24% reported in May 2020. Subsequently, a case fatality rate of 20.5% was applied as a worst-case scenario. Results. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative preoperative test was 0.07% (around 1 in 1,400). The risk of a patient with an undetected infection being admitted for surgery and subsequently dying from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is estimated at approximately 1 in 7,000. However, if an estimate of the current global infection fatality rate (1.04%) is applied, the risk of death would be around 1 in 140,000, at most. This calculation does not take into account the risk of nosocomial infection. Conversely, it does not factor in that patients will also be clinically assessed and asked to self-isolate prior to surgery. Conclusion. Our estimation suggests that the risk of patients being inadvertently admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection for elective orthopaedic surgery is relatively low. Accordingly, the risk of death following elective orthopaedic surgery is low, even when applying the worst-case fatality rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1256–1260

Aims. The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Results. The four intersecting themes identified were: 1) validity in traditional research, 2) confusion around the definition of AI, 3) an inability to validate AI research, and 4) cautious optimism about AI research. Underpinning these themes is the notion of a validity heuristic that is strongly rooted in traditional research teaching and embedded in medical and surgical training. Conclusion. Research involving AI sometimes challenges the accepted traditional evidence-based framework. This can give rise to confusion among orthopaedic surgeons, who may be unable to confidently validate findings. In our study, the impact of this was mediated by cautious optimism based on an ingrained validity heuristic that orthopaedic surgeons develop through their medical training. Adding to this, the integration of AI into everyday life works to reduce suspicion and aid acceptance. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):696–703

Aims. Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an autosomal recessive inherited condition that presents with a number of clinical manifestations that include musculoskeletal manifestations (MM). MM may present differently in different individuals and settings and the predictors are not well known. Herein, we aimed at determining the predictors of MM in patients with SCD at the University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia. Methods. An unmatched case-control study was conducted between January and May 2019 in children below the age of 16 years. In all, 57 cases and 114 controls were obtained by systematic sampling method. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data. The different MM were identified, staged, and classified according to the Standard Orthopaedic Classification Systems using radiological and laboratory investigations. The data was entered in Epidata version 3.1 and exported to STATA 15 for analysis. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine predictors and predictive margins were used to determine the probability of MM. Results. The cases were older median age 9.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 7 to 12) years compared to controls 7 (IQR 4 to 11) years; p = 0.003. After multivariate logistic regression, increase in age (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.45; p = 0.043), increase in the frequency of vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) (AOR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; p = 0.009) and increase in percentage of haemoglobin S (HbS) (AOR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.29; p < 0.001) were significant predictors of MM. Predictive margins showed that for a 16-year-old the average probability of having MM would be 51 percentage points higher than that of a two-year-old. Conclusion. Increase in age, frequency of VOC, and an increase in the percentage of HbS were significant predictors of MM. These predictors maybe useful to clinicians in determining children who are at risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:175–181

Aims

Bacterial infection activates neutrophils to release neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in bacterial biofilms of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the increase in NET activation and release (NETosis) and haemostasis markers in the plasma of patients with PJI, to evaluate whether such plasma induces the activation of neutrophils, to ascertain whether increased NETosis is also mediated by reduced DNaseI activity, to explore novel therapeutic interventions for NETosis in PJI in vitro, and to evaluate the potential diagnostic use of these markers.

We have prospectively studied the outcome of infections associated with implants which were retained and treated using a standardised antimicrobial protocol. Over a period of four years, we studied 24 consecutive patients who had symptoms of infection for less than one year, a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen which was susceptible to recommended antimicrobial agents. The infections involved hip prostheses (14), knee prostheses (5), an internal fixation device (4), and an ankle prosthesis (1). Twenty patients had a successful outcome at a median follow-up of 3.7 years (1.8 to 4.7); four had failure of the implant after a median follow-up of 1.2 years (0.3 to 2.5). The probability of survival without failure of treatment was 96% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 88 to 100), 92% at two years (95% CI 80 to 100) and 86% at three years (95% CI 72 to 100). Patients with a short-term infection but with a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen may be successfully treated by retention of the implant and the use of a standardised regimen of antimicrobial treatment

Aims

There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019.

Aims

COVID-19-related patient care delays have resulted in an unprecedented patient care backlog in the field of orthopaedics. The objective of this study is to examine orthopaedic provider preferences regarding the patient care backlog and financial recovery initiatives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period.

Aims

The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery.

Aims

Tuberculosis (TB) infection of bones and joints accounts for 6.7% of TB cases in England, and is associated with significant morbidity and disability. Public Health England reports that patients with TB experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. Our aims were to determine the demographics, presentation and investigation of patients with a TB infection of bones and joints, to help doctors assessing potential cases and to identify avoidable delays.

Plots are an elegant and effective way to represent data. At their best they encourage the reader and promote comprehension. A graphical representation can give a far more intuitive feel to the pattern of results in the study than a list of numerical data, or the result of a statistical calculation.

The temptation to exaggerate differences or relationships between variables by using broken axes, overlaid axes, or inconsistent scaling between plots should be avoided.

A plot should be self-explanatory and not complicated. It should make good use of the available space. The axes should be scaled appropriately and labelled with an appropriate dimension.

Plots are recognised statistical methods of presenting data and usually require specialised statistical software to create them. The statistical analysis and methods to generate the plots are as important as the methodology of the study itself. The software, including dates and version numbers, as well as statistical tests should be appropriately referenced.

Following some of the guidance provided in this article will enhance a manuscript.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1593–1603.

We compared the use of broth culture medium for samples taken in theatre with the standard practice of placing tissue samples in universal containers. A total of 67 consecutive patients had standard multiple samples of deep tissue harvested at surgery and distributed equally in theatre either to standard universal containers or to broth culture medium. These samples were cultured by direct and enrichment methods. The addition of broth in theatre to standard practice led to an increase in sensitivity from 83% to 95% and an increase in negative predictive value from 77% to 91%. Placing tissue samples directly into broth in the operating theatre is a simple, inexpensive way to increase the sensitivity of cultures from infected patients, and does not appear to compromise the specificity of these cultures.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1566–70.

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.

Peri-prosthetic infection remains a leading cause of revision surgery. Recent publications from the American Musculoskeletal Infection Society have sought to establish a definition of peri-prosthetic infection based on clinical findings and laboratory investigations. The limitations of their approach are discussed and an alternative definition is proposed, which it is felt may better reflect the uncertainties encountered in clinical practice.

Post-discharge surveillance of surgical site infection is necessary if accurate rates of infection following surgery are to be available. We undertook a prospective study of 376 knee and hip replacements in 366 patients in order to estimate the rate of orthopaedic surgical site infection in the community. The inpatient infection was 3.1% and the post-discharge infection rate was 2.1%. We concluded that the use of telephone interviews of patients to identify the group at highest risk of having a surgical site infection (those who think they have an infection) with rapid follow-up by a professional trained to diagnose infection according to agreed criteria is an effective method of identifying infection after discharge from hospital.

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.

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.