There is no agreement as to the superiority or specific indications for cast treatment, percutaneous pinning or open fracture fixation for Bennett's fractures of the thumb metacarpal. We undertook this study to compare the outcomes of treatment for patients treated for Bennett's fracture in the medium term.

We reviewed 33 patients treated in our unit for a bennett's fracture to the thumb metacarpal with closed reduction and casting. Each patient was matched with a patient treated surgically. Patients were matched for sex, age, Gedda grade of injury and hand dominance. Patients were reviewed at a minimum of 5-years and 66-patients were reviewed in total. Patients were examined clinically and also asked to complete a DASH questionnaire score and the brief Michigan hand questionnaire. Follow up plain radiographs were taken of the thumb and these were reviewed and graded for degenerative change using the Eaton-Littler score.

Sixty-six patients were included in the study, with 33 in the surgical and non-surgical cohorts respectively. The average age was 39 years old. In each cohort, 12/33 were female, 19/33 were right-handed with 25% of individuals injuring their dominant hand. In each coort there were 16 Grade 1 fractures, 4 Grade 2 and 13 Grade 3 fractures. There was no difference between the surgically treated and cast-treatment cohorts of patients when radiographic arthritis, pinch grip, the brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire and pain were assessed at final review. The surgical cohort had significantly lower DASH scores at final follow-up. There was no significant difference in the normalised bMHQ scores.

Our study was unable to demonstrate superiority of either operative or non-operative fracture stabilization. Patients in the surgical cohort reported superior satisfaction and DASH scores but did not demonstrate any superiority in any other objectively measured domain.

Extended patient waiting lists for assessment and treatment are widely reported for planned elective joint replacement surgery. The development of regionally based Elective Orthopaedic Centres, separate from units that provide acute, urgent or trauma care has been suggested as one solution to provide protected capacity and patient pathways. These centres will adopt protocolised care to allow high volume activity and increased day-case care. We report the plan to establish a new elective orthopaedic centre serving a population of 2.4 million people. A census conducted in 2022 identified that 15000 patients were awaiting joint replacement surgery with predictions for further increases in waiting times

The principle of care will be to offer routine primary arthroplasty surgery for low risk (ASA 1 and 2) patients at a new regional centre. Pre-operative assessment and preparation will be undertaken digitally, virtually and/or in person at local centres close to the where patients live. This requires new and integrated pathways and ways of working. Predicting which patients will require perioperative transfusion of blood products is an important safety and quality consideration for new pathways. We reviewed all cases of hip and knee arthroplasty surgery conducted at our centre over a 12-month period and identified pre-operative patient related predictive factors to allow us to predict the need for the perioperative transfusion of blood products.

We examined patient sex, age, pre-operative haemaglobin and platelet count, use of anti-coagulants, weight and body mass index to allow us to construct the Imperial blood transfusion tool.

We have used the results of our study and the transfusion tool to propose the patient pathway for the new regional elective orthopaedic centre which we present.

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.

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study.

Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores.

These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.