Telemedicine is the delivery of healthcare from a remote location using integrated computer/communication technology. This systematic review aims to explore evidence for telemedicine in orthopaedics to determine its advantages, validity, effectiveness and utilisation particularly during our current pandemic where patient contact is limited. Databases of PubMed, Scopus and CINHAL were systematically searched and articles were included if they involved any form of telephone or video consultation in an orthopaedic population. Findings were synthesised into four themes: patient/clinician satisfaction, accuracy and validity of examination, safety and patient outcomes and cost effectiveness. Quality assessment was undertaken using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. Twenty studies were included consisting of nine RCTs across numerous orthopaedic subspecialties including fracture care, elective orthopaedics and oncology. Studies revealed high patient satisfaction with telemedicine for convenience, less waiting and travelling time. Telemedicine was cost effective particularly if patients had to travel long distances, required hospital transport or time off work. No clinically significant differences were found in patient examination nor measurement of patient reported outcome measures. Telemedicine was reported to be a safe method of consultation. However, studies were of variable methodological quality with selection bias. In conclusion, evidence suggests that telemedicine in orthopaedics can be safe, cost effective, valid in clinical assessment with high patient/clinician satisfaction. Further work with high quality RCTs is required to elucidate long term outcomes. This systematic review presents up-to-date evidence on the use of telemedicine and provides data for organisations considering its use in the current COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

Aims. Healthcare systems have been rapidly restructured to meet COVID-19 demand. Clinicians are working to novel clinical guidelines, treating new patient cohorts and working in unfamiliar environments. Trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) has experienced cancellation of routine clinics and operating, with redistribution of the workload and human resources. To date, no studies have evaluated the mental health impact of these changes on the T&O workforce. We report the results of a novel survey on the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of our orthopaedic workforce and the contributory factors. Methods. A 20-question survey-based cross-sectional study of orthopaedic team members was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective was to identify the impact of the pandemic on mental health in the form of major depressive disorder (MDD) and general anxiety disorder (GAD). The survey incorporated the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-2), which is validated for screening of MDD, and the generalized anxiety disorder questionnaire (GAD-2), which is validated for screening of GAD. Results. There were 62 respondents (18 females and 44 males). As compared to the general population, we noted a greater estimated prevalence of GAD (17.7% vs 5.9%, p = 0.0009297) and MDD (19.4% vs 3.3%, p = 0.0000007731). The prevalence of MDD symptoms was greatest among senior house officers (SHOs) (p = 0.02216). Female respondents scored higher for symptoms of MDD (p = 0.03583) and GAD (p = 0.0001086). Those identifying as ‘Black, African, Caribbean or Black British’ displayed a higher prevalence of GAD symptoms (p = 0.001575) and felt least supported at work (p = 0.001341). Conclusion. Our study, in the first of its kind, shows a significant prevalence of GAD and MDD in the workforce. We found that SHOs, females and those of Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British origin were disproportionately affected. Action should be taken to help prevent adverse mental health outcomes for our colleagues during the pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:316–325

Aim. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. Methods. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections. Results. There is a paucity of high quality evidence surrounding COVID-19. This review collates evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks to put forward recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key findings have been summarized and interpreted for application to the orthopaedic operative setting. Conclusion. For COVID-19 positive patients, minimum suggested PPE includes N95 respirator, goggles, face shield, gown, double gloves, and surgical balaclava. Space suits not advised. Be trained in the correct technique of donning and doffing PPE. Use negative pressure theatres if available. Minimize aerosolization and its effects (smoke evacuation and no pulse lavage). Minimize further unnecessary patient-staff contact (dissolvable sutures, clear dressings, split casts)

Industries such as agriculture, construction and military have stringent rules about hearing protection due to the risk of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Due to the use of power tools, orthopaedic staff may be at risk of the same condition. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what is deemed acceptable occupational noise levels on an A-weighted and C weighted scale. This review is aimed to assess evidence on noise exposure testing within Orthopaedic theatres to see if it exceeds the HSE regulations. A targeted search of online databases PUBMED and EMBASE was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) principles. This review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. An eligibility criterion identifying clinical studies which assessed noise exposure for Orthopaedic staff in theatres were included. Noise exposure data was extracted from these studies and a comparison was made with A weighted and C weighted acceptable exposure levels as quoted in the HSE regulations. Fourteen papers were deemed eligible, which reviewed 133 Orthopaedic operations and 64 Orthopaedic instruments. In total, 61% (81 of 132) of Orthopaedic operations and 70% (45 of 64) of instruments exceeded the noise regulations on an A weighted scale. 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C weighted peak acceptable noise level. Orthopaedic instruments and operations can exceed safe occupational noise levels. NHS Trusts have clear policies about noise exposure in the workplace but have yet to identify Orthopaedic theatres as a potential at risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring and protection whereas Employers and Occupational Health should consider assessments to identify at risk staff in Orthopaedic theatres and offer preventative methods from NIHL

Abstract. INTRODUCTION. With increasing use of fluoroscopy in Orthopaedic theatres in recent years, the occupational radiation exposure to the surgeons and the theatre staff has increased significantly. Thyroid is one of the most radio-sensitive tissues in the body, but there is a clear lack of awareness among theatre staff of risks of radiation to thyroid. METHODS. We prospectively reviewed the use of thyroid shield by the theatre staff in the orthopaedic theatre for two weeks period. We also recorded the number of fluoroscopic images taken and total radiation dosage for each case. RESULTS. Our results showed that of 249 staff in the theatres of which, only 35 people (14.2%) wore thyroid shields during fluoroscopy, whereas 100% were complaint with body protection shield. We noticed that only 30% of the surgeons, 40% of the scrub nurses and 5% anaesthetist use this, while 95% of the radiographers uses thyroid protection in theatre. Average total radiation during upper-limb procedures was 1.25 cGy, during lower-limb procedures it was 43.48 cGy. Total radiations were very high particularly during lower-limb nailing procedures (80.98 cGy). CONCLUSION. Extensive use of fluoroscopy has a stochastic effect (accumulative effect) on thyroid gland particularly, if the dose in higher than 65 cGy. Despite its availability, only 14% people use the thyroid protection shield. We must emphasise the use of thyroid protection shield to the Orthopaedic surgeons, particularly during lower-limb procedures

Paediatric musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders often produce severe limb deformities, that may require surgical correction. This may be challenging, especially in case of multiplanar, multifocal and/or multilevel deformities. The increasing implementation of novel technologies, such as virtual surgical planning (VSP), computer aided surgical simulation (CASS) and 3D-printing is rapidly gaining traction for a range of surgical applications in paediatric orthopaedics, allowing for extreme personalization and accuracy of the correction, by also reducing operative times and complications. However, prompt availability and accessible costs of this technology remain a concern. Here, we report our experience using an in-hospital low-cost desk workstation for VSP and rapid prototyping in the field of paediatric orthopaedic surgery. From April 2018 to September 2022 20 children presenting with congenital or post-traumatic deformities of the limbs requiring corrective osteotomies were included in the study. A conversion procedure was applied to transform the CT scan into a 3D model. The surgery was planned using the 3D generated model. The simulation consisted of a virtual process of correction of the alignment, rotation, lengthening of the bones and choosing the level, shape and direction of the osteotomies. We also simulated and calculated the size and position of hardware and customized massive allografts that were shaped in clean room at the hospital bone bank. Sterilizable 3D models and PSI were printed in high-temperature poly-lactic acid (HTPLA), using a low-cost 3D-printer. Twenty-three operations in twenty patients were performed by using VSP and CASS. The sites of correction were: leg (9 cases) hip (5 cases) elbow/forearm (5 cases) foot (5 cases) The 3D printed sterilizable models were used in 21 cases while HTPLA-PSI were used in five cases. customized massive bone allografts were implanted in 4 cases. No complications related to the use of 3D printed models or cutting guides within the surgical field were observed. Post-operative good or excellent radiographic correction was achieved in 21 cases. In conclusion, the application of VSP, CASS and 3D-printing technology can improve the surgical correction of complex limb deformities in children, helping the surgeon to identify the correct landmarks for the osteotomy, to achieve the desired degree of correction, accurately modelling and positioning hardware and bone grafts when required. The implementation of in-hospital low-cost desk workstations for VSP, CASS and 3D-Printing is an effective and cost-advantageous solution for facilitating the use of these technologies in daily clinical and surgical practice

Aims. Orthopaedic surgery requires grafts with sufficient mechanical strength. For this purpose, decellularized tissue is an available option that lacks the complications of autologous tissue. However, it is not widely used in orthopaedic surgeries. This study investigated clinical trials of the use of decellularized tissue grafts in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Using the ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases, we comprehensively surveyed clinical trials of decellularized tissue use in orthopaedic surgeries registered before 1 September 2022. We evaluated the clinical results, tissue processing methods, and commercial availability of the identified products using academic literature databases and manufacturers’ websites. Results. We initially identified 4,402 clinical trials, 27 of which were eligible for inclusion and analysis, including nine shoulder surgery trials, eight knee surgery trials, two ankle surgery trials, two hand surgery trials, and six peripheral nerve graft trials. Nine of the trials were completed. We identified only one product that will be commercially available for use in knee surgery with significant mechanical load resistance. Peracetic acid and gamma irradiation were frequently used for sterilization. Conclusion. Despite the demand for decellularized tissue, few decellularized tissue products are currently commercially available, particularly for the knee joint. To be viable in orthopaedic surgery, decellularized tissue must exhibit biocompatibility and mechanical strength, and these requirements are challenging for the clinical application of decellularized tissue. However, the variety of available decellularized products has recently increased. Therefore, decellularized grafts may become a promising option in orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(3):179–188

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as ‘big data’, AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI’s limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):447–454

Aims. The use of fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgery creates risk of radiation exposure to surgeons. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can help mitigate this. The primary aim of this study was to assess if current radiation protection in orthopaedic trauma is safe. The secondary aims were to describe normative data of radiation exposure during common orthopaedic procedures, evaluate ways to improve any deficits in protection, and validate the use of electronic personal dosimeters (EPDs) in assessing radiation dose in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Radiation exposure to surgeons during common orthopaedic trauma operations was prospectively assessed using EPDs and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Normative data for each operation type were calculated and compared to recommended guidelines. Results. Current PPE appears to mitigate more than 90% of ionizing radiation in orthopaedic fluoroscopic procedures. There is a higher exposure to the inner thigh during seated procedures. EPDs provided results for individual procedures. Conclusion. PPE currently used by surgeons in orthopaedic trauma theatre adequately reduces radiation exposure to below recommended levels. Normative data per trauma case show specific anatomical areas of higher exposure, which may benefit from enhanced radiation protection. EPDs can be used to assess real-time radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery. There may be a role in future medical wearables for orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):907–912

Medical Genetics is a transversal discipline with the potential to impact on every specialty and subspecialty in medicine and the allied health sciences. The completion of the human genome project resulted in technical advancements in genomics, genomic testing and our understanding of genetic disorders in general. These advancements have greatly enhanced our understanding of the role of genetics in Orthopaedic practice, with respect to both monogenic and complex disorders. Tygerberg Hospital is currently the only state hospital in South Africa to support genetic testing in the form of gene panels as part of routine care. This is complemented by more comprehensive research testing in the form of exome and genome sequencing as part of the Undiagnosed Disease Programme. We audit the genetic and genomic testing done on patients referred from the Orthopaedic clinic over a period of 3 years (2020–2022) and review diagnostic rates and interesting results. The largest group of patients referred (n=50) had a clinical diagnosis of osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). A 100% diagnostic yield was achieved for these patients with the identification of recurring variants (FKBP10, COL1A2). Further families (n=20) with much rarer conditions are presented with important implications on the orthopaedic and medical management, prognosis, and genetic counselling for the families. We highlight the impact of genomic testing in the Orthopaedic clinic. Management changes and precision orthopaedic intervention were only possible due to a genetic diagnosis. We motivate for increased access to testing, especially for younger patients presenting with complex orthopaedic phenotypes

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. Methods. Systematic reviews of RCTs testing orthopaedic procedures published in 2022 were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A random sample of 100 systematic reviews was selected, and all included RCTs were retrieved. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews must have tested an orthopaedic procedure as the primary intervention, included at least one study identified as a RCT, been published in 2022 in English, and included human clinical trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 Tool was used to assess random sequence generation as ‘adequate’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘no information’; we then calculated the proportion of trials in each category. We also collected data to test the association between these categories and characteristics of the RCTs and systematic reviews. Results. We included 917 unique RCTs. We found that 374 RCTs (40.8%) reported adequate sequence generation, 61 (6.7%) were inadequate, 410 (44.7%) lacked information, and 72 (7.9%) were observational studies incorrectly included as RCTs within the systematic review. Publication year, an author with statistical or epidemiological qualifications, and journal impact factor were each associated with adequate randomization. We found that 45 systematic reviews (45%) included at least one inadequately randomized RCT or an observational study incorrectly treated as a RCT. Conclusion. There is evidence of a lack of random allocation in RCTs included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. The conduct of RCTs and systematic reviews should be improved to minimize the risk of bias from inadequate randomization in RCTs and mislabelling of non-randomized studies as RCTs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1072–1080

Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640

Aims. The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. Methods. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Results. Of the 7,201 papers reviewed, 136 included qualitative methods (0.1%). There was no significant difference between the journals, apart from Bone & Joint Open, which included 21 studies using qualitative methods, equalling 4% of its published articles. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that there is a very low number of qualitative research papers published within trauma and orthopaedic journals. Given the increasing focus on patient outcomes and improving the patient experience, it may be argued that there is a requirement to support both quantitative and qualitative approaches to orthopaedic research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods may effectively address the complex and personal aspects of patients’ care, ensuring that outcomes align with patient values and enhance overall care quality

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to “frontline” specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education. Methods. A 42-point questionnaire was designed, validated, and disseminated via e-mail and an instant-messaging platform. Results. A total of 101 orthopaedic trainees, representing the four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), completed the questionnaire. Overall, 23.1% (23/101) of trainees were redeployed to non-surgical roles. Of these, 73% (17/23) were redeployed to intensive treatment units (ITUs), 13% (3/23) to A/E, and 13%(3/23%) to general medicine. Of the trainees redeployed to ITU 100%, (17/17) received formal induction. Non-deployed or returning trainees had a significant reduction in sessions. In total, 42.9% (42/101) % of trainees were not timetabled into fracture clinic, 53% (53/101) of trainees had one allocated theatre list per week, and 63.8%(64/101) of trainees did not feel they obtained enough experience in the attached subspecialty and preferred repeating this. Overall, 93% (93/101) of respondents attended at least one weekly online webinar, with 79% (79/101) of trainees rating these as useful or very useful, while 95% (95/101) trainees attended online deanery teaching which was rated as more useful than online webinars (p = 0.005). Conclusion. Orthopaedic specialist trainees occupied an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic training. It is imperative this is properly understood to ensure orthopaedic specialist trainees achieve competencies set out in the training curriculum. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:676–682

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429

Aims. The purpose of this survey study was to examine the demographic and lifestyle factors of women currently in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. An electronic survey was conducted of practising female orthopaedic surgeons based in the USA through both the Ruth Jackson Society and the online Facebook group “Women of Orthopaedics”. Results. The majority of surveyed female orthopaedic surgeons reported being married (76.4%; 285/373) and having children (67.6%; 252/373). In all, 66.5% (247/373) were collegiate athletes; 82.0% (306/373) reported having no female orthopaedic surgeon mentors in undergraduate and medical school. Their mean height is 65.8 inches and average weight is 147.3 lbs. Conclusion. The majority of female orthopaedic surgeons did not have female mentorship during their training. Additionally, biometrically, their build is similar to that of the average American woman. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):419–425

Aims. Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. Methods. This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results. The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a “poor” understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. Conclusion. There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549–556

The number of women entering medical school has been steadily increasing over the past two decades; however, the number of women pursuing careers in orthopaedic surgery has not increased at the same rate. One of the suggested reasons for this discrepancy is the perceived incompatibility of having a family while upholding the demands of a surgical career in orthopaedics. A growing body of scientific literature has also outlined the increased rate of infertility and pregnancy complications in women surgeons. The extent to which these factors play a role in the recruitment and retention of women in orthopaedic surgery is unknown. Understanding pregnancy and parenthood in orthopaedic surgery is a critical first step in addressing this issue. A scoping review was conducted to identify literature pertaining to the perceptions and experiences of pregnancy and/or parenthood of women in orthopaedic surgery. Embase, MEDLINE and PsychINFO were searched on June 7th, 2021 with Boolean operators to combine the following terms: orthop?e*, pregnancy, maternity, motherhood, parenthood, parental, and parenting. Studies pertaining to orthopaedic surgery residents, fellows and staff were included. The Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping studies was followed. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify the included studies while thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke was used to analyze the qualitative data. A total of 17 studies from 2006 to 2021 met inclusion criteria. Over half of the available research was conducted within the last two years (n=9, 53%). The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n=15, 88%) and the United Kingdom (n=2, 12%). The most commonly used study design was survey-based research (n=13, 76%), followed by review studies (n=3, 18%), and case series (n=1, 6%). Thematic analysis revealed five key themes contributing to the women's experiences of pregnancy and/or parenthood in orthopaedics: (1) women are subtly or blatantly discouraged from becoming pregnant by their colleagues and superiors, (2) women delay childbearing to preserve their professional reputation, (3) there are higher rates of infertility and preterm labor in orthopaedic surgeons than in the general population, (4) the orthopaedic work environment can be hazardous and challenging for the pregnant woman, but accommodations are possible to mitigate risks, and (5) overall, there is limited support for pregnant and/or parenting women in orthopaedics throughout their career. The first woman to be board-certified in orthopaedic surgery in the United States was Ruth Jackson in 1937. Eighty-four years later, orthopaedic surgery has the lowest number of women of the surgical specialties. The barriers related to pregnancy and/or parenthood during a woman's career in orthopaedics may be one cause. This study identified five themes related to pregnancy and parenthood that warrant further investigation. Qualitative research approaches can be used to elucidate the details of women's experiences and to provide suggestions for structural changes in the orthopaedic work environment

The use of cannabis is increasingly medically relevant as it is legalized and gains acceptance more broadly. However, the effects of marijuana use on postoperative outcomes following orthopedic surgery have not been well-characterized. This study seeks to illuminate the relationship between marijuana use and the incidence postoperative complications including: DVT, PE, nonunion, and infection following common orthopedic procedures. This study was conducted using a national orthopaedic claims insurance database. We identified all patients undergoing knee arthroscopy, shoulder arthroscopy, operatively managed long bone fractures (humerus, femur, tibia and/or fibula, and radius and/or ulna), and single-level lumbar fusion. The proportion of patients within each surgery cohort who had a diagnostic code for marijuana dependence was assessed. The rates of DVT, PE, and infection within 90 days were assessed for all patients. The rate of nonunion was assessed for the long bone fracture and lumbar fusion cohorts. Univariate analyses of marijuana dependence on all outcomes were performed, followed by a multivariate logistic regression analysis controlling for known patient comorbidities. We identified 1,113,944 knee arthroscopy, 747,938 shoulder arthroscopy, 88,891 lumbar fusion, and 37,163 long bone fracture patients. Out of the 1,987,936 patients, 24,404 patients had a diagnostic code for marijuana dependence. Within all four surgical subgroups, the marijuana dependence cohort experienced increased rates of infection, PE, and DVT, as well as increased rates of nonunion in the lumbar fusion and long bone fracture populations. In the multivariate analyses controlling for a variety of patient risk factors including tobacco use, marijuana dependence was identified as an independent risk factor for infection within all four surgical subgroups (Knee: OR 1.85, p < 0.001; Shoulder: OR 1.65, p < 0.001; Spine: OR 1.45, p < 0.001; Long bone: OR 1.28, p < 0.001), and for nonunion in the lumbar fusion (OR 1.38, p < 0.001) and long bone fracture (OR 1.31, p < 0.001) subgroups. Our data suggests that marijuana dependence may be associated with increased rates of infection and nonunion following a variety of orthopaedic procedures. During preoperative evaluation, surgeons may consider marijuana use as a potential risk factor for postoperative complications, especially within the context of marijuana legalization. Future research into this relationship is necessary

In March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The pandemic imposed drastic changes in our social and professional routine. Professionally at all levels our hospital tasks were changed and prioritized. Surgeons and residents were deployed on rotations to fields other than their expertise in orthopaedics. Health-care education received major changes in these challenging times, and students did face difficulties in receiving education, as well as training due to limited clinical and surgical exposure. In response to the WHO regulations, most of the teaching centres and hospitals worldwide have adopted the web-based teaching and learning model to continue the education and training of orthopaedic residents. These results brought significant changes to the training experience in orthopaedic surgery in combination with the fact that clinical duty hours and case volume were substantially reduced. In what concerns orthopaedic journal publications, the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a decline in the annual publication rate for the first time in over 20 years. Although not uniform, the reduction was most likely due to multifactorial causes. Regarding the appraisal at the end of training, at the Orthopaedic European Board Examination we were able to verify that the outcome at the written part 1 exam was good, equivalent to the outcome prior to the pandemic. However the oral viva was much worse, probably due to the fact that residents skipped much of the clinical and surgical teaching and exposure during 2020 and 2021. At the end of training, theoretical/factual knowledge was good but poor from the clinical practical experience