COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. The initial response to the pandemic included the cessation of routine services including elective orthopaedic surgery. There was apprehension among both surgeons and patients about restarting elective surgical services. The high mortality rate in perioperative patients who contract COVID-19 was of particular concern. The aim of this study was to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in orthopaedic patients at our institution following the restart of elective surgery between August 2020 and November 2020 after the first wave of Covid in the UK. All patients who had their elective Orthopaedic surgeries at our institution from 1st August 2020 to 30th November 2020 were checked whether they were Covid positive or experienced COVID symptoms within 2 weeks after the operation. All patients were advised a 14-day period of comprehensive social distancing, 3 days of self-isolation and had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery and underwent surgery at a COVID free site. The patients were contacted and the hospital database was searched to identify those patients who were Covid positive or had Covid symptoms after the surgery. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, gender, procedure, the subspeciality and admission type. Patients who underwent emergency procedures and trauma operations were excluded. Out of the 499 patients, 315 were contacted over telephone and hospital database was searched for the rest of the patients. We found that none of the patients were positive for COVID or had symptoms of COVID within two weeks of surgery. 5 patients were COVID positive with symptoms few months after the procedure and all of them recovered. There were 144 inpatient admissions and 353 day cases. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. Findings of our study confirms that COVID-free elective pathway is an efficient process, and this could be implemented in future elective Orthopaedic surgeries during COVID times. Elective surgery can be safely resumed using dedicated pathways and procedures -Surgeons, hospital staff and patients should remain vigilant

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 investigate factors that contribute to patient decisions regarding attendance for arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A postal questionnaire was distributed to patients on the waiting list for hip or knee arthroplasty in a single tertiary centre within the UK. Patient factors that may have influenced the decision to attend for arthroplasty, global quality of life (QoL) (EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L)), and joint-specific QoL (Oxford Hip or Knee Score) were assessed. Patients were asked at which ‘COVID-alert’ level they would be willing to attend an NHS and a “COVID-light” hospital for arthroplasty. Independent predictors were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results. Of 540 distributed questionnaires, 400 (74.1%; 236 awaiting hip arthroplasty, 164 awaiting knee arthroplasty) complete responses were received and included. Less than half (48.2%) were willing to attend for hip or knee arthroplasty while a UK COVID-19 epidemic was in circulation (COVID-alert levels 3 to 5). Patients with worse joint-specific QoL had a preference to proceed with surgery at COVID-alert levels 3 to 5 compared to levels 1 and 2 (hip arthroplasty odds ratio (OR) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.63); knee arthroplasty OR 1.16 (1.07 to 1.26)). The odds of patients with worse joint-specific QoL being willing to attend for surgery at COVID-alert levels 3 to 5 increased further if surgery in a private, “COVID-light” hospital was available (hip arthroplasty OR 3.50 (95% CI 3.26 to 3.71); knee arthroplasty OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.53). Conclusion. Patient decisions surrounding elective surgery have been influenced by the global COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the importance of patient involvement in ensuring optimized provision of elective surgery during these challenging times. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):261–270

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

Aims. To evaluate safety outcomes and patient satisfaction of the re-introduction of elective orthopaedic surgery on ‘green’ (non-COVID-19) sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A strategy consisting of phased relaxation of clinical comorbidity criteria was developed. Patients from the orthopaedic waiting list were selected according to these criteria and observed recommended preoperative isolation protocols. Surgery was performed at green sites (two local private hospitals) under the COVID-19 NHS contract. The first 100 consecutive patients that met the Phase 1 criteria and underwent surgery were included. In hospital and postoperative complications with specific enquiry as to development of COVID-19 symptoms or need and outcome for COVID-19 testing at 14 days and six weeks was recorded. Patient satisfaction was surveyed at 14 days postoperatively. Results. There were 54 females and 46 males (mean age 44 years, mean body mass index (BMI) 25.6 kg/m. 2. ). In all, 56 patients underwent major orthopaedic procedures. There were no exclusions. One patient had a postoperative positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test but had no typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection and no clinical sequelae. 99% of patients were satisfied with the process and 98% would recommend undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery in the study period. Conclusion. In an environment with appropriate infrastructure, patient selection, isolation, screening, and testing, elective orthopaedic surgery is safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated with high patient satisfaction. Further follow-up is required to establish that safety is maintained as the clinical restrictions are eased with the phased approach described. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:450–456

Aims. The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway. Methods. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative test was calculated using a lower-end RT-PCR sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 95%, and the UK disease prevalence of 0.24% reported in May 2020. Subsequently, a case fatality rate of 20.5% was applied as a worst-case scenario. Results. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative preoperative test was 0.07% (around 1 in 1,400). The risk of a patient with an undetected infection being admitted for surgery and subsequently dying from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is estimated at approximately 1 in 7,000. However, if an estimate of the current global infection fatality rate (1.04%) is applied, the risk of death would be around 1 in 140,000, at most. This calculation does not take into account the risk of nosocomial infection. Conversely, it does not factor in that patients will also be clinically assessed and asked to self-isolate prior to surgery. Conclusion. Our estimation suggests that the risk of patients being inadvertently admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection for elective orthopaedic surgery is relatively low. Accordingly, the risk of death following elective orthopaedic surgery is low, even when applying the worst-case fatality rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1256–1260

Introduction. This study aimed to assess the relationship between preparation times and operative procedures for elective orthopaedic surgery. A clearer understanding of these relationships may facilitate list organisation and thereby contribute to improved operating theatre efficiency. Methods. Two years of elective orthopaedic theatre data was retrospectively analysed. The hospital medical information unit provided de- identified data for 2015 and 2016 elective orthopaedic cases, from which were selected seven categories of procedures with sufficient numbers to allow further analysis - primary hip and knee replacement, spinal surgery, shoulder surgery (excluding shoulder replacement), knee surgery, foot and ankle surgery (excluding ankle replacement), Dupuytrens surgery and general orthopaedic surgery. The data analysed included patient age, ASA grade, operation, operation time, and preparation time (calculated as the time from the start of the anaesthetic proceedings to the patient's admission to Recovery, with the operating time [skin incision to skin closure] subtracted). Statistical analysis of the data was undertaken. Results. A total of 1596 procedures performed over the two year period were analysed. Preparation times for the different procedures were assessed, along with the relationship to the procedure complexity. Neither age nor ASA correlated strongly with preparation times. Spine procedures had greater preparation times than hip and knee arthroplasty. Greater uniformity in preparation times for hip and knee arthroplasty was seen across the anaesthetic group than operative times across the surgeon group. Discussion. Preparation times are just one aspect that may be evaluated with regard to theatre utilisation. This study did not address the theatre turn-over time between cases, which includes transfer of the patient from the admitting/pre-operative area into the theatre. Conclusion. Preparation times for elective procedures follow a pattern which may be used to inform list planning, with the potential for greater theatre efficiencies with regard to list utilisation and staff allocation

OpenPredictor, a machine learning-enabled clinical decision aid, has been developed to manage backlogs in elective surgeries. It aims to optimise the use of high volume, low complexity surgical pathways by accurately stratifying patient risk, thereby facilitating the allocation of patients to the most suitable surgical sites. The tool augments elective surgical pathways by providing automated secondary opinions for perioperative risk assessments, enhancing decision-making. Its primary application is in elective sites utilising lighter pre-assessment methods, identifying patients with minimal complication risks and those high-risk individuals who may benefit from early pre-assessment. The Phase 1 clinical evaluation of OpenPredictor entailed a prospective analysis of 156 patient records from elective hip and knee joint replacement surgeries. Using a polynomial logistic regression model, patients were categorised into high, moderate, and low-risk groups. This categorisation incorporated data from various sources, including patient demographics, co-morbidities, blood tests, and overall health status. In identifying patients at risk of postoperative complications, OpenPredictor demonstrated parity with consultant-led preoperative assessments. It accurately flagged 70% of patients who later experienced complications as moderate or high risk. The tool's efficiency in risk prediction was evidenced by its balanced accuracy (75.6%), sensitivity (70% with a 95% confidence interval of 62.05% to 76.91%), and a high negative predictive value (96.7%). OpenPredictor presents a scalable and consistent solution for managing elective surgery pathways, comparable in performance to secondary consultant opinions. Its integration into pre-assessment workflows assists in efficient patient categorisation, reduces late surgery cancellations, and optimises resource allocation. The Phase 1 evaluation of OpenPredictor underscores its potential for broader clinical application and highlights the need for ongoing data refinement and system integration to enhance its performance

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

Aims. Elective surgery has been severely curtailed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little evidence to guide surgeons in assessing what processes should be put in place to restart elective surgery safely in a time of endemic COVID-19 in the community. Methods. We used data from a stand-alone hospital admitting and operating on 91 trauma patients. All patients were screened on admission and 100% of patients have been followed-up after discharge to assess outcome. Results. Overall, 87 (96%) patients remained symptom-free and recovered well following surgery. Four (4%) patients developed symptoms of COVID-19, with polymerase chain reaction ribonucleiuc acid (PCR-RNA) testing confirming infection. Conclusion. Based on our findings, we propose that if careful cohorting and screening is carried out in a stand-alone cold operating site, it is reasonable to resume elective operating, in a time of endemic but low community prevalence of SAR-Cov2. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:229–235

Background. In the United Kingdom, over 1 million elective surgeries were cancelled due to COVID-19, resulting in over 1.9 million people now waiting more than 4 months for their procedure – 3x the number last year. To address this backlog, the healthcare service has been asked to develop locally-designed ‘COVID-light’ facilities. In our local system, 822 patients awaited orthopaedic surgery when elective surgery was permitted to resume. The phased return of service required a careful and pragmatic prioritisation of patients, to protect resources, patients, and healthcare workers. Aims. We aim to describe how the COVID-19 Algorithm for Resuming Elective Surgery (CARES) was used to consider 1) Which type of operation and patient should be prioritised? and 2) Which patients are safe to undergo surgery? The central tenets to this were patient safety, predicted efficacy of the surgery, and delivering compassionate care by considering biopsychosocial factors. Methods. Orthopaedic surgeons were provided with details of patients on their waiting list. They prioritised patients into those for surgery within 1 month (. Urgent. : e.g. arthroplasty for rapid deterioration from avascular necrosis or infection, or in the lowest quartile of Oxford Hip/Knee/Shoulder scores), < 3 months (. Soon. : e.g. revision or second-stage arthroplasty), and > 3 months (arthroplasty for end-stage arthrosis). The surgeon-led stratification was then reviewed by a multidisciplinary surgical prioritisation team, including anaesthetists and operating theatre managers, to consider medical history, the need for additional intraoperative services (such as cardiac physiologists, or specialist equipment requiring industry ‘reps’), and the risk of postoperative deterioration requiring HDU/ICU. The MDT also reviewed what the impact of disease and further delay may have on a patient's mental health, ability to work, or ability to care for dependents. The CARES protocol created an aggregate score for efficacy, compassion, safety and surgical risk to equitably rank patients. Results. The implementation of CARES stratified the waiting list into 122 (14.8%) patients requiring urgent surgery, with high likely health-gain or biopsychosocial gain, of whom 76 were low-risk and 46 were high-risk – medically moribund or complex. There were 232 (28.2%) patients required surgery within 3 months, and 468 (57.1%) patients were deemed safe to delay for > 3months. Alongside i) staff- and patient-screening, ii) adequate personal protective equipment, and iii) increased used of regional anaesthesia, the healthcare system was reconfigured, to create two surgical pathways. ‘Green Well’ patients were scheduled for surgery at a clean site – an elective surgical centre with no on-site HDU/ICU. ‘Green High-Risk’ patients underwent surgery at the general hospital (with on-site HDU/ICU) in operating rooms (ORs) which were physically segregated from ‘Red’ ORs reserved for COVID-19+ or trauma patients. In 6 weeks, 164 patients underwent surgery with no transmission of COVID-19 between patients or staff. Conclusion. Our healthcare system safely resumed elective surgery as early as the top 2% of hospitals nationally. This was facilitated by CARES stratification (which factors safety, efficacy, and compassion), MDT-led decisions, and surgical pathway reconfiguration. This generalisable, validated approach could be widely applied to facilitate restarts globally

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/m. 2. (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

Background. Outcomes for patients with acute illnesses may be affected by the day of the week they present to hospital. Policy makers state this ‘weekend effect’ to be the main reason for pursuing a change in consultant weekend working patterns. However, it is uncertain whether such a phenomenon exists for elective orthopaedic surgery. This study investigated whether a ‘weekend effect’ contributed to adverse outcomes in patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacements. Methods. Retrospectively collected data was obtained from our institutions electronic patient records. Using univariate analysis, we examined potential risk factors including; Age, Sex, ASA Grade, Comorbidities, as well as the day of the week surgery was undertaken. Subsequent multivariate analyses identified covariate-adjusted risk factors, associated with prolonged hospital stays. 30-day mortality data was assessed according to the day of the week surgery was performed. Results. 892 patients underwent arthroplasty surgery from 01/09/2014 till the 31/08/2015. 457 had a total hip and 435 had a total knee replacement. 814 patients (91.3%) underwent surgery during the week, while 78 patients (8.7%) had surgery on a Saturday. There was no difference in the average Length of Stay (LOS) between groups (5.0, 2.6 versus 5.0, 3.4, p=0.95), and weekend surgery was not associated with a LOS greater than 4 days. The two variables found to be associated with a prolonged LOS were; increasing age (RR) 1.02 (95% CI: 1.01–1.03, p<0.001) and an ASA score of 2, (RR) 1.6 (95% CI: 1.15– 2.20, p=0.005). There was one death in a patient who was ASA III, and who underwent surgery on a Monday. Conclusion. There is no ‘weekend effect’ for elective orthopaedic surgery. Changes in consultant weekend working patterns are unlikely to have any effect on mortality or LOS for elective orthopaedic patients

Aims. The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery. Methods. Patients were randomly selected from elective orthopaedic waiting lists at three centres in the UK in April, June, August, and September 2020 and were contacted by telephone. Patients were asked whether they wanted to proceed or defer surgery. Patients who wished to defer were asked seven questions relating to potential barriers to proceeding with surgery and were asked whether there were measures/circumstances that would allow them to go forward with surgery. Results. There was a significant decline in the rate of deferral for surgery from April (n = 38/50, 76%), June (n = 68/233, 29%), to August (n = 6/50, 12%) and September (n = 5/100, 5%) (p < 0.001). Patients wishing to defer were older (68 years (SD 10.1) vs 65 (SD 11.9)), more likely to be female (65% (44/68) vs 53% (88/165)) and waiting for a knee arthroplasty (65% (44/68) vs 41% (67/165); p < 0.001). By September 2020, all patients that deferred in June at one centre had proceeded or wanted to proceed with surgery due to a perceived lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 perioperatively (68%, n = 15) or because their symptoms had progressed (32%, n = 7). The most common reason (n = 14/17, 82%) for patients deferring surgery in September was the perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 while as an inpatient. When asked what measures or circumstances would enable them to proceed with surgery, the most common (n = 7, 41%) response was reassurance of a COVID-19 free hospital. Conclusion. The rate of deferral fell to 5% by September, which was due to a lower perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 perioperatively or worsening of symptoms while waiting. The potential of a COVID-19-free hospital and communication of mortality risk may improve a patient’s willingness to go forward with surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:663–668

Waitemata District Health Board (WDHB) is contracted through public funding to achieve approximately 500 total hip arthroplasties per year. A pilot was established to increase productivity and reduce costs in these surgical procedures. Current barriers to efficiency in elective surgery are slow patient turnover, increase in costs of consumables and staff employment issues. This pilot introduced: A change in drivers and incentives so remuneration and rewards were related to productivity (replaced medical salaries), an alliance contracting concept (1), encouraged productivity, contained costs (consumables) increase surgeon and anaesthetist involvement in overall patient care (reduce need for additional medical staff), reduced length of hospital stay, shortened patient journey, established surgeon/anaesthetist/nurse team. Inclusion criteria:1. Hip replacements in DRG103C: Hip replacement W/O catastrophic or severe CC. 2. ASA grade <4. 3. Cases July to November 2010. Comparison of baseline data was then carried out between this pilot and compared with data from the main campus (both sites had dedicated elective operating lists). Theatre time was reduced from 167.5 to 97 minutes (42%), length of stay 5.58 days to 3.46 days (38%), OR costs $3830 to $2708 (29%). There was an increase in medical costs but a 12% saving was achieved overall. The pilot has shown that it is possible to significantly reduce costs in elective surgery through an increase in productivity. To reduce costs of elective surgery, the culture/environment needs to change to encourage the individual surgeons, anaesthetists, and other members of the team to increase productivity and decrease costs

Outcomes for patients with acute illnesses may be affected by the day of the week they present to hospital. Policy makers state this ‘weekend effect’ to be the main reason for pursuing a change in consultant weekend working patterns. However, it is uncertain whether such a phenomenon exists for elective orthopaedic surgery. This study investigated whether a ‘weekend effect’ contributed to adverse outcomes in patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacements. Retrospectively collected data was obtained from our institutions electronic patient records. Using univariate analysis, we examined potential risk factors including; Age, Sex, ASA Grade, Comorbidities, as well as the day of the week, hospital admission and surgery occurred. Subsequent multivariate analyses identified covariate- adjusted risk factors, associated with prolonged hospital stays. 30-day mortality data was assessed according to the day of the week surgery was performed. 892 patients underwent arthroplasty surgery from 01/09/2014 till the 31/08/2015. 457 patients had a total hip and 435 had a total knee replacement. 814 patients (91.3%) underwent surgery during the week, while 78 (8.7%) had surgery on a Saturday. There was no difference in the average Length of Stay (LOS) between groups (5.0, 2.6 versus 5.0, 3.4, p=0.95), and weekend surgery was not associated with a LOS greater than 4 days. The two variables found to be associated with a prolonged LOS were; increasing age (RR) 1.02 (95% CI: 1.01–1.03, p<0.001) and an ASA score of 2, (RR) 1.6 (95% CI: 1.15 − 2.20, p=0.005). There was one death in a patient who was ASA III, and who underwent surgery on a Monday. There is no ‘weekend effect’ for elective orthopaedic surgery. Changes in consultant weekend working patterns are unlikely to have any effect on mortality or LOS for elective orthopaedic patients

Trauma and elective orthopaedic demands in New Zealand are increasing. In this study, prospective and retrospective data has been collected at Nelson Hospital and across New Zealand to identify the percentage of elective theatre time lost due to cancellation for acute patient care. Data has been collected from theatre management systems, hospital data systems and logged against secretarial case bookings, to calculate a percentage of elective theatre time lost to acute operating or insufficient bed capacity. Data was collected over a five-month period at Nelson Hospital, with a total of 215 elective and 226 acute orthopaedic procedures completed. A total of 95 primary hip or knee arthroplasties were completed during this trial while 53 were cancelled. The total number of elective operative sessions (one session is the equivalent of a half day operating theatre time) lost to acute workload was 47.9. Thirty-three percent of allocated elective theatre time was cancelled - an equivalent of approximately one-full day elective operating per week. Over a five-week period data was collected across all provincial hospitals in New Zealand, with an average of 18% of elective operating time per week lost due to acute workload. Elective cancellations were due to acute operating 40% of the time and bed shortages 60% of the time. The worst effected centre was Palmerston North which had an average of 33% of elective operating cancelled per week to accommodate acute surgery or due to bed shortages. New Zealand's provincial orthopaedic surgeons are under immense pressure from acute operating that impedes provision of elective surgery. The New Zealand government definition of an ‘acute case’ does not reflect the nature of today's orthopaedic burden. Increasing and aging populations along with staff and infrastructure shortages have financial and societal impacts beyond medicine and require better definitions, further research, and funding from governance

Introduction. Postvoid residualurine (PVR) can be an unknown chronic disorder, but it can also occur after surgery. A pilot-study initiated in Elective Surgery Center, Silkeborg led to collaboration with a urologist to develop a flowchart regarding treatment of PVR. Depending on the severity, men with significant PVR volumes were either recommend follow up by general practitioner or referred to an urologist for further diagnose and/or treatment. Aim: to determine the prevalence of pre- and postoperative PVR in men >65 years undergoing orthopedic surgeries and associated risk factors. Method. A single-center, prospective cohort study. Male patients were consecutively included during one year from April 2022. Data was extracted from the electronic patient files: age, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), co-morbidity (e.g. diabetes), type of surgery and anesthesia, opioid use, pre- and postoperative PVR. Result. 796 participants; 316 knee-, 276 hip-, 26 shoulder arthroplasties and 178 lower back spinal surgeries. 95% (755) were bladder scanned preoperatively. 12% (89) had PVR 150-300ml, and 3% (23) had PVR >300ml. There was a higher risk of preoperative PVR ≥150ml in patients reporting LUTS, OR 1.97(1.28;3.03), having known neurological disease, OR 3.09(1.41;6.74), and the risk increased with higher age, OR 1.08 per year (1.04;1.12). Diabetes and the type of surgery was not associated with higher risk of PVR. 72% (569) had a postoperative bladder scan. 15% (95%CI: 12-19%) (70) patients without PVR preoperatively had PVR ≥150ml postoperatively. Conclusion. Approximately 15% of the men had PVR ≥150ml preoperatively. Neurological disease was the most severe risk factor and secondary if reporting LUTS. As expected, the risk increased with age. Neither diabetes nor the type of surgery was associated with higher risk. 15% of men without preoperative PVR had PVR after surgery. It is not possible to conclude if it is transient or chronic but further studies are ongoing

The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of BMP 7 and recombinant Human (rh) BMP 2 at stimulating bone formation and bone union in trauma and elective orthopaedic surgery. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the use of BMP 7 and rhBMP 2 at the Queen Alexandra Hospital between 2005 and 2012. The minimum follow up was three months. Inclusion criteria consisted of all patients who had failed to achieve previous surgical bone union and then received either BMP 7 or rhBMP 2 in an attempt to achieve bone union (as part of revision surgery). Patients who have not completed a minimum of three months follow up were excluded. Bone union was defined clinically and radiographically. Results. 17 patients were included (9 elective and 8 trauma patients). 9 patients received BMP2 (8 trauma and 1 elective) and 8 received rhBMP 2 (all elective). The average number of attempted fusions with autogenous bone graft prior to the use of BMP agent in the trauma and elective group was 2 and 3 respectively. The overall union rate following the use of BMP was 94.1%. 1 patient from the BMP 7 group (trauma patient) failed to unite. The union rate with BMP 7 and rhBMP 2 was 88.9% and 100% respectively. Following the use of BMP the average time to union was 117 days (BMP 7 124 days and rhBMP 2 112 days). Conclusion. Our results suggest both BMP 7 and rhBMP 2 to be an effective means of stimulating bone formation and bone union in patients with established non-union, in both trauma and elective orthopaedic surgery