Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric hip fractures are the new global pandemic. It is predicted to reach 7.3-21.3 million cases worldwide by 2050. Even with optimal care, geriatric patients suffer a higher morbidity and mortality rate when compared with the general population and often demand expensive hospital aftercare. This study aims to assess the implications of the successful adoption of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in the management of geriatric hip fractures in an Indian facility. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care hospital in India and reported following REporting of studies Conducted using the Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guidelines. We included all geriatric patients over 60 years of age who were admitted with hip fractures for surgical management between January 2021 and January 2023. The individual perioperative components of the ERAS protocol focus on key areas such as preoperative nutritional support, effective multimodal analgesia with optimal pain control, fluid management, and early postoperative mobilization. RESULTS: Thirty-eight geriatric patients with a mean age of 77.5 (± 9.6) years were included for analysis. Twenty-three patients sustained intertrochanteric fractures and underwent fixation with proximal femur nailing and the remaining had 15 sustained neck or femur fractures of which 11 underwent hemiarthroplasty surgery and the remaining four underwent a total hip replacement. The mean time to surgery was 2 (± 0.2) days. Eighty-two percent (n=31) of the patients were mobilized with a walking frame within a day after surgery and were followed up after discharge with home physiotherapy. The mean time to ambulation was 2 (± 0.62) days. The mean length of stay was 4 (± 1.6) days. We had a 30-day readmission rate of 5.2% (n=2) and a 30-day mortality rate of 5.2% (n=2). The one-year mortality rate was 13% (n=5). CONCLUSION: Management of geriatric hip fractures requires exceptional interdisciplinary coordination and carefully planned strategies to optimize patient care. With the implementation of the ERAS protocol, we could perceive clinical benefits in terms of early recovery and short length of hospital stay in patients with hip fractures. Further comparative studies are required, which can determine the relative importance of individual measures in the ERAS protocol and understand their longer-term outcomes in hip fracture surgeries.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient reported outcome measures using the EQ5D-5L and EQ5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS) following elective shoulder and elbow orthopaedic list delays. This was further correlated with patients' intention to proceed with the planned surgery. METHODS: Patients on the waiting list for more than 26 weeks were included in the study. Telephone interviews were conducted utilising the EQ5D-5L and the EQ5D-5L VAS at the time of addition to the waiting list and presently. RESULTS: 75 out of 324 screened patients were eligible. 62 (82.7%) patients still wanted to proceed with their planned procedure while 13 (17.3%) patients in the other group no longer wanted to proceed. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean age, gender, initial trial of conservative treatment and limb laterality between these groups (p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean duration of being on the waiting list between these groups (40.4 ± 19 vs. 62.9 ± 17.5 weeks respectively). Furthermore, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the current EQ5D-5L VAS scores were observed between these groups (52.4 vs. 65.8 respectively). CONCLUSION: This study has shown that majority of patients on elective shoulder and elbow orthopaedic lists with prolonged waiting list delays and improved EQ5D-5L scores are likely to decline the planned procedure and vice versa. Nevertheless, the unplanned 'watchful waiting' caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and leading to patients deciding to decline surgery, is not a substitute for timely planned surgery to alleviate patients' suffering.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Preoperative anxiety potentially results in perioperative anaesthetic complications. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of preoperative anxiety in adult patients scheduled to undergo elective orthopaedic surgery at an academic hospital in South Africa and identify contributory factors. Methods: This cross-sectional study included all patients scheduled for elective orthopaedic surgery the following day from 25 July to 3 November 2021. An adapted version of the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) was used. Four questions determined the patients' anxiety and two questions their desire for more information about their forthcoming anaesthesia and surgery. A 5-point Likert scale was used to capture the patients' responses to the APAIS questions. Data on other possible contributory factors to preoperative anxiety were collected using a questionnaire. Results: Of the 88 patients, 82 (93.2%) were included in the study. A total of 40 (48.8%) patients had an APAIS score of ≥ 11, indicating anxiety. A high need-for-information score (≥ 8) was found in 31 (37.8%) patients. A significant association between patients with a higher anxiety score and a higher need-for-information score (p = 0.0063) was identified. Other non-significant factors associated with a higher anxiety score included a lower level of education and no postoperative home support. Conclusion: Patients with a high need for information tended to be more anxious on the day before surgery. The APAIS could be introduced in preoperative ward admissions to identify these patients and provide an appropriate level of counselling about their planned procedure. Counselling might reduce their preoperative anxiety, but further research needs to confirm this assertion. Larger studies are recommended to determine the influence of other factors contributing to preoperative anxiety

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) poses a significant diagnostic dilemma for medical professionals. Current hospital screening protocol determines the likelihood of a positive diagnosis of a urinary tract infection (UTI) based on the results of a bedside urinalysis. ASB, defined as a positive urine culture in the absence of symptoms, can contribute to unnecessary cancellations, poor utilisation of theatre time, and delayed patient care. We present a two-cycle audit proposing a new pathway to addressing ASB in patients awaiting elective orthopaedic surgery, aiming to optimise surgical yield. Our objectives are to identify areas for improvement in our departmental practices with respect to asymptomatic bacteria compared to the published literature. We propose a new protocol targeted to improve our current practices to minimise patient cancellations and optimise theatre utilisation. Methodology A total of 78 patients who had an elective orthopaedic procedure cancelled at a large district general hospital offering tertiary orthopaedic services, between two study periods spanning March 2018 to April 2019 and May 2019 to March 2020, were identified from electronic hospital records and theatre management systems. Demographics, procedure details, and reasons for cancellations, including the result of urinalysis and the presence of UTI symptoms were assessed. Our pathway was introduced after the first study period and, subsequently, re-audited to assess adherence to the new protocol and its effect on cancellations. Results We identified 78 patients, with a 50:50 male:female split and an average age of 63 (range = 9-90). Of the 33 patients in the first cohort, seven (21.2%) were cancelled due to UTI risk based on positive urinalysis. Of these seven cancellations, one (14.3%) patient reported symptoms of a UTI. The second cohort comprised 45 patients, two (4.4%) of whom were cancelled due to UTI risk based on symptom questionnaire results. These two symptomatic patients along with another two asymptomatic patients (8.8% in total) were found to have positive urinalyses; however, the two asymptomatic patients had their operations cancelled for unrelated reasons. Conclusions The study has shown that previously of all patients awaiting elective orthopaedic operations who had their procedures cancelled, 85.7% were cancelled due to ASB. After the introduction of a new protocol focussing on symptoms rather than urinalysis, we estimate that the number of cancelled elective orthopaedic operations has reduced by 71.4%, thereby greatly improving the utilisation of theatre time.

RESUMEN

AIMS: Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to orthopaedic waiting list patients at the start of the UK's first COVID-19 lockdown to capture key quantitative and qualitative aspects of patients' health. A total of 888 respondents were divided into quintiles, with sampling stratified based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD); level 1 represented the 'most deprived' cohort and level 5 the 'least deprived'. RESULTS: The least deprived cohort were older (mean 65.95 years (SD 13.33)) than the most deprived (mean 59.48 years (SD 13.85)). Mean symptom duration was lower in the least deprived areas (68.59 months (SD 112.26)) compared to the most deprived (85.85 months (SD 122.50)). Mean pain visual analogue scores (VAS) were poorer in the most compared to the least deprived cohort (7.11 (SD 2.01) vs 5.99 (SD 2.57)), with mean mood scores also poorer (6.06 (SD 2.65) vs 4.71 (SD 2.78)). The most deprived areas exhibited lower mean quality of life (QoL) scores than the least (0.37 (SD 0.30) vs 0.53 (SD 0.31)). QoL findings correlated with health VAS and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD2) scores, with the most deprived areas experiencing poorer health (health VAS 50.82 (SD 26.42) vs 57.29 (SD 24.19); GAD2: 2.94 (SD 2.35) vs 1.88 (SD 2.07)). Least-deprived patients had the highest self-reported activity levels and lowest sedentary cohort, with the converse true for patients from the most deprived areas. CONCLUSION: The most deprived patients experience poorer physical and mental health, with this most adversely impacted by lengthy waiting list delays. Interventions to address inequalities should focus on prioritizing the most deprived.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):777-785.

RESUMEN

Objectives This study aimed to determine the efficacy of the self-isolation guidance for elective orthopaedic surgery. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between patient compliance with the self-isolation guidance and the resulting COVID-19 status. This would give planning strategies for managing elective orthopaedic lists. Method For the study, 110 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgical procedures during a one-month period were identified. Patients scheduled for surgery were asked to take a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test three days prior to surgery and they were asked to follow the self-isolation guidance. On the day of admission, patients declared compliance with self-isolation regulations. Admission was refused in cases of non-compliance. After discharge, telephone calls were made to patients to determine the degree of compliance with the self-isolation guidance. Results Overall, 106 out of 107 patients that were compliant with the self-isolation guidance tested negative for COVID-19; 15 patients had their operation cancelled over the one-month period; of which one-third were cancelled by the patients themselves. Three patients were found to be non-compliant with the self-isolation guidance. Of these three non-compliant patients, one tested positive for COVID-19. Adherence to the self-isolation guidelines helped to prevent last-minute cancellations and manage the list effectively. Conclusions Compliance with our self-isolation guidance accompanied by PCR screening minimises the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 and is thus an effective system to safely perform elective orthopaedic surgery. Intentionally overbooking theatre lists by 10 to 12.5% may account for cancellations and improve theatre efficiencies during post-pandemic recovery plans for elective orthopaedic surgeries.

RESUMEN

Background Elective orthopedic surgery, as well as the procedures of many surgical departments, have been severely curtailed by coronavirus disease 2019. Here, we aimed to analyze how all surgeons could safely perform essential procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods A retrospective review of elective surgeries performed between May 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, was conducted. A screening questionnaire was used, and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing was assessed in all admitted surgical department patients. Their positivity rate and the positivity rate in our fever outpatient clinic were analyzed. Results Of 6099 patients who tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 during the study period, eight (0.13%) tested positive. The positive results were seen in four patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, two undergoing respiratory surgery, one undergoing breast surgery, and one undergoing plastic surgery. The number of patients who visited the outpatient clinic for fever was 15,639, including 1640 positive cases (positive rate of 10.5%). The positive rate of preoperative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing for scheduled surgery was consistently low and did not coincide with the peak of the wave of infection, while the positivity rate of outpatients with fever demonstrated a wave consistent with the national infection situation. All 6091 patients, excluding the eight positive patients, underwent surgery; all patients who underwent surgery were discharged from the hospital without developing coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the establishment of a universal reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing system is essential for the safe performance of scheduled surgeries during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

RESUMEN

Introduction Communication with patients is a vital part of the surgical pathway, and when done effectively, it can greatly improve patient outcomes and patient satisfaction and reduce canceled appointments. Different forms of communication work well for different patient demographics, and it is important to optimize communication techniques. We designed a study to review the communication preferences of orthopedic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed by asking patients who were due to undergo orthopedic procedures to answer a questionnaire on their communication preferences, the reminder notice period for appointments, and safety and satisfaction ratings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Communication method preferences are influenced by patient factors such as gender and age. Phone calls were the most popular communication method throughout all patient groups, with 61% selecting it as their preference. Younger patients preferred multiple communication methods of phone calls, texts, and emails, whereas the older group had a stronger preference for letters. Letters were more popular among females (28% compared to 10% of males), whereas males had a stronger preference for other communication methods. The majority of patients said they would not have liked a letter prior to their clinic appointment (65%). Of those who indicated a preferred notice period, 73% would have liked five days or less notice prior to their clinic appointment, while 65% would have liked 10-14 days notice prior to their surgery. The average safety rating was 55%. The overall satisfaction rating with the communication process was 71.7%. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has changed patient feelings towards healthcare and, as a result, changed the way healthcare is delivered. Communication method preferences among trauma and orthopedic patients vary and depend on factors such as gender and age. If healthcare departments can optimize their communication processes, they will improve their patient outcomes and enhance their resources.

RESUMEN

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected medical practice worldwide. In the UK, elective operative lists had to be postponed to accommodate the increase in hospital admissions. Within our local trauma and orthopaedic department, a harm review clinic was developed for these postponed elective cases. The purpose of this clinic was to evaluate the impact and outcomes of the delay in elective hip and knee procedures. Methodology The elective list database of William Harvey Hospital, Kent, from April to December 2020 was retrospectively analysed. Inclusion criteria included all lower limb primary arthroplasty, elective lower limb revision surgery, and other hip and knee procedure patients waiting more than 52 weeks for surgery. All patients had telephone consultations averaging 10 minutes. Data included patients' symptoms, fresh investigations, changes in treatment plans, mental health status, and value of consultation were assessed and recorded. Results A total of 242 patients from eight lower limb consultants were analysed. Patients with hip pathology accounted for 39.2% (95 patients) versus knee pathology accounting for 60.7% (147 patients). In total, 13 (5.37%) patients reported improvement in their physical symptoms, whereas 46 (19%) felt their symptoms worsen. Overall, 26 (10.7%) patients had a change in their treatment plan following the consultation. In total, 18 (7.4%) patients required further face-to-face follow-up following the telephone consultation There were no patients who had significant physical or mental harm. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has brought changes in how we practice medicine. The harm review service has been a valuable service to both patients and the orthopaedic department. This harms review clinic was able to identify changes in treatment plans for patients. A small percentage of patients required face-to-face appointments. We suggest telephone assessment should be the first mode of communication with patients. Further studies should be conducted in other specialities to determine if there are similar outcomes.

RESUMEN

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has caused mass disruption to all aspects of society, with elective orthopaedics not spared. The pandemic has the potential to cause a tsunami of health burden in the community if elective services are not resumed to pre-pandemic levels of activity. Studies have shown that elective orthopaedics can be safely carried out in a COVID-19 free hospital. This study reviewed the transition in operating at an independent COVID-19 free hospital to an NHS hospital concurrently treating patients with COVID-19. Methods A strategy of phased relaxation of clinical comorbidity criteria was followed. Patients from the orthopaedic waiting list were selected according to these criteria and observed recommended preoperative isolation protocols. Operations were undertaken in the independent sector under the COVID-19 contract and the NHS site. Patients were assessed from all phases in the resumption of services. In-hospital and post-operative complications with specific enquiries regarding the development of COVID-19 symptoms or the need and outcome for COVID-19 testing at 14 days and six weeks was recorded. Results This study included 263 patients, of which 155 were female. The mean age of patients was 52.45. The mean BMI of all patients was 29.1 kg/m2. Additionally, 124 patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1, 117 ASA grade 2 and 22 ASA grade 3 and 167 patients underwent a major operation, with total hip replacement being the most common operation. There were no in-hospital complications. No patients had a positive test result or symptoms of COVID-19 in the six-week post-operative period. Conclusion In summary, we demonstrated that elective orthopaedic surgery can be safely undertaken via a green pathway in a higher risk patient cohort when COVID-19 is prevalent in the community.

RESUMEN

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. METHODS: A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. RESULTS: A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. CONCLUSION: Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42-53.

RESUMEN

AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: During a seven-month period, 340 elective arthroplasties were performed. There was zero mortality. One patient had a positive swab for COVID-19 while an inpatient, but remained asymptomatic. There were two readmissions within a 12-week period for hip dislocation. Patients had a mean age of 68 years (28 to 90), mean BMI of 30 kg/m2 (19.0 to 45.6), and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of 2 (1 to 3). CONCLUSION: Results show no increased morbidity or mortality in this cohort of patients compared to the same hospital's morbidity and mortality pre-COVID-19. The screened pathway for elective patients is effective in ensuring that patients can be safely operated on electively in an acute hospital. This study should reassure clinicians and patients that arthroplasties can be carried out safely when the appropriate precautions are in place. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):940-944.

RESUMEN

AIMS: The aim of this study was to surveil whether the standard operating procedure created for the NHS Golden Jubilee sufficiently managed COVID-19 risk to allow safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: This was a prospective study of all elective orthopaedic patients within an elective unit running a green pathway at a COVID-19 light site. Rates of preoperative and 30-day postoperative COVID-19 symptoms or infection were examined for a period of 40 weeks. The unit resumed elective orthopaedic services on 29 June 2020 at a reduced capacity for a limited number of day-case procedures with strict patient selection criteria, increasing to full service on 29 August 2020 with no patient selection criteria. RESULTS: A total of 2,373 cases were planned in the 40-week study period. Surgery was cancelled in 59 cases, six (10.2%) of which were due to having a positive preoperative COVID-19 screening test result. Of the remaining 2,314, 996 (43%) were male and 1,318 (57%) were female. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 59.2 to 74.6). The median American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was 2. Hip and knee arthroplasties accounted for the majority of the operations (76%). Six patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively (0.25%) and 39 patients were tested for COVID-19 within 30 days after discharge, with only five patients testing positive (0.22%). CONCLUSION: Through strict application of a COVID-19 green pathway, elective orthopaedic surgery could be safely delivered to a large number of patients with no selection criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):951-957.

RESUMEN

Introduction  Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in postponing non-emergency elective surgeries beginning in April 2020. Our hospital successfully restarted elective orthopaedic surgery during the pandemic to help improve the quality of life of patients with chronic disabilities.  This study describes the development of local protocols and pathways to allow for a safe restart of elective orthopaedic surgery in a COVID-19-free 'green' site. It includes the morbidity and mortality outcomes of those patients who underwent non-emergency orthopaedic operations during this time.  Methods  This is a prospective cohort study over an eight-week period evaluating 104 patients undergoing non-emergency orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-19-free surgical pathway. The primary outcome measure was 14-day postoperative mortality. The main secondary outcome measures were the development of a COVID-19 infection in the hospital and 14 days postoperatively as well as the need for intensive care unit admissions.  Results  No patients developed a COVID-19 infection. There were no intensive care unit admissions or postoperative deaths during our study time frame. There was no statistical difference seen for age (< 70 or > 70), gender, body mass index, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades in the development of postoperative complications.  Conclusions  This study describes a roadmap to setting up a protocolised elective operating service for orthopaedic surgery. It has shown that standardised protocols in a COVID-19-free 'green' site, preoperative COVID-19 testing, and adherence to national guidelines on self-isolation can help prevent developing COVID-19 infection postoperatively and reduce the risk of postoperative mortality.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a large body of literature regarding the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care and practice. This rapid review aims to synthesize this published literature to give the orthopaedic fraternity an overview about the best practices that need to be followed during this period. METHODOLOGY: A rapid review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement for rapid reviews on the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care and practice. A Pubmed search was done to identify all literature related to the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care and practice, published between December 2019 and October 2020 using a predefined search strategy. The final review included 375 peer-reviewed articles addressing the objectives. RESULTS: The majority of articles were expert opinions ( 37.1%) and narrative reviews (13.1%). There were 17.3% retrospective studies and 2.1% prospective studies with only one randomized control trial and ten systematic reviews.  83.8% of articles had levels of evidence IV and V, 79.5% of the articles were published in core-orthopaedic journals. Maximum publications were from the United States of America (31.7%), followed by India (11.5%). European countries together contributed to  32.0% of all publications. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on all aspects of orthopaedic care and practice. The pandemic has affected outpatient clinics, emergency and elective surgery, rehabilitation, resident training, personnel management, use of personal protective equipment, telemedicine and all sub-specialities of orthopaedics. Orthopaedic practice will require the incorporation of new technologies, restructuring of health systems and reorganizing of training programs for optimal patient care. There would also be a need for frequent review of emerging literature to provide evidence-based guidelines to the orthopaedic fraternity which will not only help in mitigation of transmission of disease but also ensure continuity of optimum patient care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00354-0.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: An ageing population has resulted in a rise in the number of hip and knee replacement surgeries in the UK. The pre-operative pathway is plagued with issues causing long delays and cancellations. Virtual healthcare technologies have a growing evidence base to help solve these issues. One problem of implementing these technologies is the resistance to change mentality from healthcare professionals. By getting their opinions on the place of these technologies within the pre-operative pathway, a united front can be formed to help deliver change. METHODS: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders within the orthopaedic pre-operative pathway at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. General topics included the different technologies that could be used within the pathway, their uses and associated benefits and problems. Interviews were audio-recorded, before being manually transcribed and then analysed to form categories and themes. RESULTS: Various uses, benefits and problems were identified by healthcare professionals for each modality of technology. E-forms were seen as a high reward, low-risk intervention. Remote patient monitoring and teleconsultations had their bonuses, but feasibility was a primary concern. Web-based interventions were seen as an intervention of the past, whereas virtual reality was seen as perhaps being ahead of its time. M-health was very positively viewed due to its all-encompassing nature. Digital illiteracy emerged as a consistent problem for most technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature, the results from this study and technology trends within society highlight both M-health and E-forms as the 2 most promising virtual healthcare technologies for use in the pre-operative pathway for orthopaedics. Areas such as pre-operative assessment, triaging and prehabilitation are prime candidates for virtual intervention. Future research should also consider including patient opinions on any proposed interventions, as well as taking into account barriers to implementation.

RESUMEN

AIMS: The exact risk to patients undergoing surgery who develop COVID-19 is not yet fully known. This study aims to provide the current data to allow adequate consent regarding the risks of post-surgery COVID-19 infection and subsequent COVID-19-related mortality. METHODS: All orthopaedic trauma cases at the Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust from 'lockdown' (23 March 2020) to date (15 June 2020) were collated and split into three groups. Adult ambulatory trauma surgeries (upper limb trauma, ankle fracture, tibial plateau fracture) and regional-specific referrals (periprosthetic hip fracture) were performed at a stand-alone elective site that accepted COVID-19-negative patients. Neck of femur fractures (NOFF) and all remaining non-NOFF (paediatric trauma, long bone injury) surgeries were performed at an acute site hospital (mixed green/blue site). Patients were swabbed for COVID-19 before surgery on both sites. Age, sex, nature of surgery, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, associated comorbidity, length of stay, development of post-surgical COVID-19 infection, and post-surgical COVID-19-related deaths were collected. RESULTS: At the elective site, 225 patients underwent orthopaedic trauma surgery; two became COVID-19-positive (0.9%) in the immediate perioperative period, neither of which was fatal. At the acute site, 93 patients underwent non-NOFF trauma surgery, of whom six became COVID-19-positive (6.5%) and three died. A further 84 patients underwent NOFF surgery, seven becoming COVID-19 positive (8.3%) and five died. CONCLUSION: At the elective site, the rate of COVID-19 infection following orthopaedic trauma surgery was low, at 0.9%. At the acute mixed site (typical district general hospital), for non-NOFF surgery there was a 6.5% incidence of post-surgical COVID-19 infection (seven-fold higher risk) with 50% COVID-19 mortality; for NOFF surgery, there was an 8.3% incidence of post-surgical COVID-19 infection, with 71% COVID-19 mortality. This is likely to have significance when planning a resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery and for consent to the patient.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:556-561.

RESUMEN

AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. CONCLUSION: The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562-567.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis are not like anything the U.S. health care system has ever experienced. METHODS: As we begin to emerge from the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to plan the sustainable resumption of elective procedures. We must first ensure the safety of our patients and surgical staff. It must be a priority to monitor the availability of supplies for the continued care of patients suffering from COVID-19. As we resume elective orthopedic surgery and total joint arthroplasty, we must begin to reduce expenses by renegotiating vendor contracts, use ambulatory surgery centers and hospital outpatient departments in a safe and effective manner, adhere to strict evidence-based and COVID-19-adjusted practices, and incorporate telemedicine and other technology platforms when feasible for health care systems and orthopedic groups to survive economically. RESULTS: The return to normalcy will be slow and may be different than what we are accustomed to, but we must work together to plan a transition to a more sustainable health care reality which accommodates a COVID-19 world. CONCLUSION: Our goal should be using these lessons to achieve a healthy and successful 2021 fiscal year.

Asunto(s)