Aims. The aims of this study were to describe the demographic, socioeconomic, and educational factors associated with core surgical trainees (CSTs) who apply to and receive offers for higher surgical training (ST3) posts in Trauma & Orthopaedics (T&O). Methods. Data collected by the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019 were used in this retrospective longitudinal cohort study comprising 1,960 CSTs eligible for ST3. The primary outcome measures were whether CSTs applied for a T&O ST3 post and if they were subsequently offered a post. A directed acyclic graph was used for detecting confounders and adjusting logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), which assessed the association between the primary outcomes and relevant exposures of interest, including: age, sex, ethnicity, parental socioeconomic status (SES), domiciliary status, category of medical school, Situational Judgement Test (SJT) scores at medical school, and success in postgraduate examinations. This study followed STROBE guidelines. Results. Compared to the overall cohort of CSTs, females were significantly less likely to apply to T&O (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46; n = 155/720 female vs n = 535/1,240 male; p < 0.001). CSTs who were not UK-domiciled prior to university were nearly twice as likely to apply to T&O (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.85; n = 50/205 vs not UK-domiciled vs n = 585/1,580 UK-domiciled; p < 0.001). Age, ethnicity, SES, and medical school category were not associated with applying to T&O. Applicants who identified as ‘black and minority ethnic’ (BME) were significantly less likely to be offered a T&O ST3 post (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97; n = 165/265 BME vs n = 265/385 white; p = 0.034). Differences in age, sex, SES, medical school category, and SJT scores were not significantly associated with being offered a T&O ST3 post. Conclusion. There is an evident disparity in sex between T&O applicants and an ethnic disparity between those who receive offers on their first attempt. Further high-quality, prospective research in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period is needed to improve equality, diversity, and inclusion in T&O training. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):697–707

Aims. Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this. Methods. Included RCTs were ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation), a two-arm study of surgery versus non-surgical treatment for proximal humerus fractures, and UK FROST (United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial), a three-arm study of two surgical and one non-surgical treatment for frozen shoulder. To determine whether early treatment effects were present, the primary outcome of Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was compared on forest plots for: the chief investigator’s (CI) site to the remaining sites, the first five sites opened to the other sites, and patients grouped in quintiles by randomization date. Potential for bias was assessed by comparing mean age and proportion of patients with indicators of poor outcome between included and excluded/non-consenting participants. Results. No bias in treatment effect was observed overall for the CI site, or the first five sites, compared with the remaining sites in either trial. An early treatment effect on the OSS was observed for the first quintile of participants recruited to ProFHER only (clinically relevant difference of seven points). Selection bias for age was observed in the ProFHER trial only, with slightly younger patients being recruited into the study. Both trials showed some selection bias for markers of poor prognosis, although these did not appear to change over time. Conclusion. No bias in treatment effects overall were found at the CI or early sites set-up. An early treatment effect was found in one of the two trials, which was likely a chance effect as this did not continue during the study. Selection bias was observed in both RCTs, however this was minimal and did not impact on outcome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):96–103

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate surgeons’ reported change of treatment preference in response to the results and conclusion from a randomized contolled trial (RCT) and to study patterns of change between subspecialties and nationalities. Methods. Two questionnaires were developed through the Delphi process for this cross-sectional survey of surgical preference. The first questionnaire was sent out before the publication of a RCT and the second questionnaire was sent out after publication. The RCT investigated repair or non-repair of the pronator quadratus (PQ) muscle during volar locked plating of distal radial fractures (DRFs). Overall, 380 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate in the first questionnaire, of whom 115 replied. One hundred surgeons were invited to participate in the second questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeons for whom a treatment change was warranted, who then reported a change of treatment preference following the RCT. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for repair or non-repair, reasons for and against following the RCT results, and difference of preferred treatment of the PQ muscle between surgeons of different nationalities, qualifications, years of training, and number of procedures performed per year. Results. Of the 100 surgeons invited for the second questionnaire, 74 replied. For the primary outcome, six of 32 surgeons (19%), who usually repaired the PQ muscle and therefore a change of treatment preference was warranted, reported a change of treatment preference based on the RCT publication. Of the secondary outcomes, restoring anatomy was the most common response for repairing the PQ muscle. Conclusion. The majority of the orthopaedic surgeons, where a change of treatment preference was warranted based on the results and conclusion of a RCT, did not report willingness to change their treatment preference. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:549–555

Aims. 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. Methods. 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 surgery. Results. Overall, 88 patients (88%) were happy to continue with their scheduled procedure at the earliest opportunity. Patients with an ASA grade I were most likely to agree to surgery, followed by patients with ASA grades II, then those with grade III (93.3%, 88.7%, and 78.6% willingness, respectively). Patients waitlisted for an injection were least likely to consent to surgery, with just 73.7% agreeing. In all, there was a large increase in the proportion of patient willingness to continue with surgery compared to our initial study during the first wave of the pandemic. Conclusion. As COVID-19 lockdown restrictions are lifted after the second peak of the pandemic, we are seeing greater willingness to continue with scheduled orthopaedic surgery, reinforcing a change in patient perception towards having elective surgery. However, we must continue with strict COVID-19 precautions in order to minimize viral transmission as we increase our elective orthopaedic services going forward. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):865–870

Aims. To establish if COVID-19 has worsened outcomes in patients with AO 31 A or B type hip fractures. Methods. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed for a five-week period from 20 March 2020 and the same time period in 2019. The primary outcome was mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 infection, perioperative pulmonary complications, time to theatre, type of anaesthesia, operation, grade of surgeon, fracture type, postoperative intensive care admission, venous thromboembolism, dislocation, infection rates, and length of stay. Results. In all, 76 patients with hip fractures were identified in each group. All patients had 30-day follow-up. There was no difference in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification or residence at time of injury. However, three in each group were not fit for surgery. No significant difference was found in 30-day mortality; ten patients (13%) in 2019 and 11 patients (14%) in 2020 (p = 0.341). In the 2020 cohort, ten patients tested positive for COVID-19, two (20%) of whom died. There was no significant increase in postoperative pulmonary complications. Median time to theatre was 20 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 16 to 25) in 2019 versus 23 hours (IQR 18 to 30) in 2020 (p = 0.130). Regional anaesthesia increased from 24 (33%) cases in 2019 to 46 (63%) cases in 2020, but ten (14%) required conversion to general anaesthesia. In both groups, 53 (70%) operations were done by trainees. Hemiarthroplasty for 31 B type fractures was the most common operation. No significant difference was found for intensive care admission or 30-day venous thromboembolism, dislocation or infection, or length of stay. Conclusion. Little information exists on mortality and complications after hip fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of writing, no other study of outcomes in the UK has been published. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:415–419

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims

Chronic osteomyelitis (COM) of the lower limb in adults can be surgically managed by either limb reconstruction or amputation. This scoping review aims to map the outcomes used in studies surgically managing COM in order to aid future development of a core outcome set.

Despite the vast quantities of published artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that target trauma and orthopaedic applications, very few progress to inform clinical practice. One key reason for this is the lack of a clear pathway from development to deployment. In order to assist with this process, we have developed the Clinical Practice Integration of Artificial Intelligence (CPI-AI) framework – a five-stage approach to the clinical practice adoption of AI in the setting of trauma and orthopaedics, based on the IDEAL principles (https://www.ideal-collaboration.net/). Adherence to the framework would provide a robust evidence-based mechanism for developing trust in AI applications, where the underlying algorithms are unlikely to be fully understood by clinical teams.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):507–512.

Aims

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery.

Aims

Excision of chronic osteomyelitic bone creates a dead space which must be managed to avoid early recurrence of infection. Systemic antibiotics cannot penetrate this space in high concentrations, so local treatment has become an attractive adjunct to surgery. The aim of this study was to present the mid- to long-term results of local treatment with gentamicin in a bioabsorbable ceramic carrier.

Aims

Physician burnout and its consequences have been recognized as increasingly prevalent and important issues for both organizations and individuals involved in healthcare delivery. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the patterns of self-reported wellness in orthopaedic surgeons and trainees from multiple nations with varying health systems.

Aims

This study aims to enhance understanding of clinical and radiological consequences and involved mechanisms that led to corrosion of the Precice Stryde (Stryde) intramedullary lengthening nail in the post market surveillance era of the device. Between 2018 and 2021 more than 2,000 Stryde nails have been implanted worldwide. However, the outcome of treatment with the Stryde system is insufficiently reported.

Aims

Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites.

Aims

To assess the impact of the declaration of the state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of visits to a traumatology emergency department (ED), and on their severity.

Aims

This study aimed to identify patients receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA) for trauma during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and quantify the risks of contracting SARS-CoV-2 virus, the proportion of patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), and rate of complications including mortality.

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.

Aims

COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department.

Introduction

The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is unusual, if not unique, for three major research papers concerned with the management of the fractured neck of femur (FNOF) to be published in a short period of time, each describing large prospective randomized clinical trials. These studies were conducted in up to 17 countries worldwide, involving up to 80 surgical centers and include large numbers of patients (up to 2,900) with FNOF. Each article investigated common clinical dilemmas; the first paper comparing total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for FNOF, the second as to whether ‘fast track’ care offers improved clinical outcomes and the third, compares sliding hip with multiple cancellous hip screws. Each paper has been deemed of sufficient quality and importance to warrant publication in The Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine. Although ‘premier’ journals, they only occationally contain orthopaedic studies and thus may not be routinely read by the busy orthopaedic/surgical clinician of any grade. It is therefore our intention with this present article to accurately summarize and combine the results of all three papers, presenting, in our opinion, the most important clinically relevant facts.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:198–202.

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice. In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues, including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size, the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:161–8.