The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic. This is a prospective study of 100 patients who were on the waiting list of a single surgeon for an elective hip or knee procedure. Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with their scheduled surgical procedure. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to define if any specific patient factors influenced decision to continue with surgeryAims
Methods
The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed).Aims
Methods
The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has had a significant impact on trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) departments worldwide. To manage the peak of the epidemic, orthopaedic staff were redeployed to frontline medical care; these roles included managing minor injury units, forming a “proning” team, and assisting in the intensive care unit (ICU). In addition, outpatient clinics were restructured to facilitate virtual consultations, elective procedures were cancelled, and inpatient hospital admissions minimized to reduce nosocomial COVID-19 infections. Urgent operations for fractures, infection and tumours went ahead but required strict planning to ensure patient safety. Orthopaedic training has also been significantly impacted during this period. This article discusses the impact of COVID-19 on T&O in the UK and highlights key lessons learned that may help to proactively prepare for the next global pandemic. Cite this article:
The number of arthroplasties being undertaken
is expected to grow year on year, and periprosthetic joint infections will
be an increasing socioeconomic burden. The challenge to prevent
and eradicate these infections has resulted in the emergence of
several new strategies, which are discussed in this review. Cite this article:
There has been an in increase in the availability
of effective biological agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
as well as a shift towards early diagnosis and management of the
inflammatory process. This article explores the impact this may
have on the place of orthopaedic surgery in the management of patients
with rheumatoid arthritis. Cite this article:
Infected periprosthetic fractures around total hip arthroplasties are increasingly common and extremely challenging problem. The purpose of the study was to review the experience of two tertiary referral units managing infected periprosthetic femoral fractures using interlocking long-stem femoral prostheses either as temporary functional spacers or as definitive implants. A prospective review of 19 patients managed at two tertiary referral units between 2000 and 2011. Each patient was diagnosed and managed according to similar institutional protocols. Investigation through aspiration and biopsy of periprosthetic tissue supplemented haematological tests to confirm infection. The Cannulock uncoated stem was used in 14 cases, and the Kent hip prosthesis in 5 cases. Allograft struts were used in patients with deficient bone stock. The mean follow-up for the series was a 53 months (range, 24–99 months). 13 patients underwent definitive revision within 7.9 months (range, 6–10 months; SD, 2.2 months). In 6 cases we implanted an extensively porous-coated stem, in 4 cases a tapered distally fixed cementless stem was used, and in 3 cases a proximal femoral replacement was used. There were no reinfections after the second stage revisions in these patients. 2 patients were offered further staged surgery due to persistently raised inflammatory markers but being mobile and relatively painfree declined. They are being managed in the community on oral antibiotics. Satisfactory outcome was noted in all cases, and in 13 cases, revision to a definitive stem was undertaken after successful control of infection and fracture union. The average postoperative Harris Hip score was 83 (range 79–89). All patients returned to their low to moderate premorbid functional state after discharge.Methods
Results
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.
Up to 2% of total hip arthroplasties (THA) are still complicated by infection. This leads to dissatisfied patients with poor function, and has far-reaching social and economic consequences. The challenge in these cases is the eradication of infection, the restoration of full function and the prevention of recurrence. We report the outcome of early aggressive debridement in the acutely infected THA. We studied 28 consecutive patients referred with acutely infected THA (18 primaries, 10 revisions) which occurred within 6 weeks of the index operation or of haematogenous spread between 1999 and 2006. Microbiology confirmed bacterial colonisation in all cases with 20 early post-operative infections and 8 cases of acute haematogenous spread. Patients with a cemented THA underwent aggressive open debridement, a thorough synovectomy and exchange of all mobile parts. Uncemented THA were treated as a single stage revision with removal of all implants, aggressive debridement and re-implantation of new prosthesis. Antibiotics were continued in all cases until inflammatory markers and the plasma albumin concentration returned to within normal limits.Introduction
Methods
There have been concerns regarding the quality of training received by Orthopaedic trainees. There has been a reduction in working hours according to the European working times directive. National targets to reduce surgical waiting lists has increased the workload of consultants, further reducing the trainees' surgical experience. Navigation assisted procedures are successfully used in orthopaedics and provides useful feedback to the surgeon regarding precision of implant placement. We investigated the use of navigation aids as an alternative source of training surgical trainees. We choose a navigation assisted knee replacement (TKR) model for this study. A first year Orthopaedic registrar level trainee was taught the TKR procedure by a scrubbed consultant in 5 cases. He was then trained in use of non-CT based navigation surgery. The Trainee then performed navigation assisted non-complex primary TKR surgery. A consultant Orthopaedic surgeon was available throughout for advice and support. Data collected included pre and post procedure valgus and varus alignment of the knee, total operative time and WOMAC scores pre and post operatively.Introduction
Methods
In recent years, there has been a significant advancement in our understanding of femoro-acetabular impingement and associated labral and chondral pathology. Surgeons worldwide have demonstrated the successful treatment of these lesions via arthroscopic and open techniques. The aim of this study is to validate a simple and reproducible classification system for acetabular chondral lesions. In our classification system, the acetabulum is first divided into 6 zones as described by Ilizalithurri VM et al [Arthroscopy 24(5) 534-539]. The cartilage is then graded as 0 to 4 as follows: Grade 0 – normal articular cartilage lesions; Grade 1 softening or wave sign; Grade 2 - cleavage lesion; Grade 3 - delamination and Grade 4 –exposed bone. The site of the lesion is further typed as A, B or C based on whether the lesion is 1/3 distance from acetabular rim to cotyloid fossa, 1/3 to 2/3 distance from acetabular rim to cotyloid fossa and > 2/3 distance from acetabular rim to cotyloid fossa. For validating the classification system, six surgeons reviewed 14 hip arthroscopy video clips. All surgeons were provided with written explanation of our classification system. Each surgeon then individually graded the cartilage lesion. A single observer then compared results for observer variability using kappa statistics.Introduction
Methods
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.
