Elective orthopaedic surgery was cancelled early in the COVID-19 pandemic and is currently running at significantly reduced capacity in most institutions. This has resulted in a significant backlog to treatment, with some hospitals projecting that waiting times for arthroplasty is three times the pre-COVID-19 duration. There is concern that the patient group requiring arthroplasty are often older and have more medical comorbidities—the same group of patients advised they are at higher risk of mortality from catching COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate the morbidity and mortality in elective patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this to a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, including nosocomial COVID-19 infection. These operations were performed in a district general hospital, with COVID-19 acute admissions in the same building. Our institution reinstated elective operations using a “Blue stream” pathway, which involves isolation before and after surgery, COVID-19 testing pre-admission, and separation of ward and theatre pathways for “blue” patients. A register of all arthroplasties was taken, and their clinical course and investigations recorded.Aims
Methods
Implantation of allograft bone is an integral part of revision surgery of the hip. One major concern with its use is the risk of transmission of infective agents. There are a number of methods of processing allograft bone in order to reduce this risk. One method requires washing the tissue using pulsed irrigation immediately before implantation. We report the incidence of deep bacterial infection in 138 patients (144 revision hip arthroplasties) who had undergone implantation of allograft bone. The bone used was fresh-frozen, non-irradiated and pulse-washed with normal saline before implantation. The deep infection rate at a minimum follow-up of one year was 0.7%. This method of processing appears to be associated with a very low risk of allograft-related bacterial infection.
The purpose of this study was to compare the
diagnostic accuracy for the detection of infection between the culture of
fluid obtained by sonication (SFC) and the culture of peri-implant
tissues (PITC) in patients with early and delayed implant failure,
and those with unsuspected and suspected septic failure. It was
hypothesised that SFC increases the diagnostic accuracy for infection
in delayed, but not early, implant failure, and in unsuspected septic
failure. The diagnostic accuracy for infection of all consecutive
implants (hardware or prostheses) that were removed for failure was
compared between SFC and PITC. This prospective study included 317
patients with a mean age of 62.7 years (9 to 97). The sensitivity
for detection of infection using SFC was higher than using PITC
in an overall comparison (89.9% Sonication is mainly recommended when there is implant failure
with no clear signs of infection and in patients with delayed implant
failure. In early failure, SFC is not superior to PITC for the diagnosis
of infection and, therefore, is not recommended as a routine diagnostic
test in these patients. Cite this article:
