Aims. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery during the global pandemic. Secondary objectives were to determine if there was a change in infection and complication profile with changes introduced in practice. Methods. This UK-based multicentre retrospective national audit studied foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between 13 January and 31 July 2020, examining time periods pre-UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23 March to 11 May 2020), and post-lockdown. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included. A total of 43 centres in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland participated. Variables recorded included demographic data, surgical data, comorbidity data, COVID-19 and mortality rates, complications, and infection rates. Results. A total of 6,644 patients were included. Of the operated patients, 0.52% (n = 35) contracted COVID-19. The overall all-cause 30-day mortality rate was 0.41%, however in patients who contracted COVID-19, the mortality rate was 25.71% (n = 9); this was significantly higher for patients undergoing diabetic foot surgery (75%, n = 3 deaths). Matching for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities, the odds ratio of mortality with COVID-19 infection was 11.71 (95% confidence interval 1.55 to 88.74; p = 0.017). There were no differences in surgical complications or infection rates prior to or after lockdown, and among patients with and without COVID-19 infection. After lockdown the COVID-19 infection rate was 0.15% and no patient died of COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 infection was rare in foot and ankle patients even at the peak of lockdown. However, there was a significant mortality rate in those who contracted COVID-19. Overall surgical complications and postoperative infection rates remained unchanged during the period of this audit. Patients and treating medical personnel should be aware of the risks to enable informed decisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(4):216–226

Aims. Functional rehabilitation has become an increasingly popular treatment for Achilles tendon rupture (ATR), providing comparably low re-rupture rates to surgery, while avoiding risks of surgical complications. Limited evidence exists on whether gap size should affect patient selection for this treatment option. The aim of this study was to assess if size of gap between ruptured tendon ends affects patient-reported outcome following ATR treated with functional rehabilitation. Methods. Analysis of prospectively collected data on all 131 patients diagnosed with ATR at Royal Berkshire Hospital, UK, from August 2016 to January 2019 and managed non-operatively was performed. Diagnosis was confirmed on all patients by dynamic ultrasound scanning and gap size measured with ankle in full plantarflexion. Functional rehabilitation using an established protocol was the preferred treatment. All non-operatively treated patients with completed Achilles Tendon Rupture Scores (ATRS) at a minimum of 12 months following injury were included. Results. In all, 82 patients with completed ATRS were included in the analysis. Their mean age was 51 years (standard deviation (SD) 14). The mean ATRS was 76 (SD 19) at a mean follow-up of 20 months (SD 11) following injury. Gap inversely affected ATRS with a Pearson’s correlation of -0.30 (p = 0.008). Mean ATRS was lower with gaps > 5 mm compared with ≤ 5 mm (73 (SD 21) vs 82 (SD 16); p = 0.031). Mean ATRS was lowest (70 (SD 23)) with gaps > 10 mm, with significant differences in perceived strength and pain. The overall re-rupture rate was two out of 131 (1.5%). Conclusion. Increasing gap size predicts lower patient-reported outcome, as measured by ATRS. Tendon gap > 5 mm may be a useful predictor in physically demanding individuals, and tendon gap > 10 mm for those with low physical demand. Further studies that control for gap size when comparing non-operative and operative treatment are required to assess if these patients may benefit from surgery, particularly when balanced against the surgical risks. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1535–1541