Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

Introduction. Hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a debilitating complication following joint replacement surgery, with significant impact on patients and healthcare systems. The INFection ORthopaedic Management: Evidence into Practice (INFORM: EP) study, builds upon the 6-year INFORM programme by developing evidence-based guidelines for the identification and management of hip PJI. Methods. A panel of 21 expert stakeholders collaborated to develop best practice guidelines based on evidence from the previous INFORM research programme. An expert consensus process was used to refine guidelines using RAND/UCLA criteria. The guidelines were then implemented over a 12-month period through a Learning Collaborative of 24 healthcare professionals from 12 orthopaedic centres in England. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 members of the collaborative and findings used to inform the development of an implementation support toolkit. Patient and public involvement contextualised the implementation of the guidelines. The study is registered with the ISCRTN (34710385). Result. The INFORM guidelines, structured around the stages of PJI management, were largely supported by surgeons, although barriers included limited awareness among non-surgical team members, lack of job planning for multidisciplinary teams, and challenges in ensuring timely referrals from primary care. Psychological support for patients was identified as a critical gap. Advanced Nurse Practitioners and multidisciplinary team (MDT) coordinators were seen as potential bridges to address these knowledge gaps. The guidelines were also viewed as a useful tool for service development. Conclusions. This study presents the first evidence-based guidelines for hip PJI management, offering a comprehensive approach to prevention, treatment, and postoperative care. Effective implementation is crucial, involving wider dissemination amongst primary and community care, as well as non-specialist treatment centres. Further resources are needed to ensure job planning for MDTs and psychological support for patients. Overall, this study lays the foundation for improved PJI management, benefiting patients and healthcare systems

Hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a debilitating complication following joint replacement surgery, with significant impact on patients and healthcare systems. The INFection ORthopaedic Management: Evidence into Practice (INFORM:EP) study, builds upon the 6-year INFORM programme by developing evidence-based guidelines for the identification and management of hip PJI. A panel of 21 expert stakeholders collaborated to develop best practice guidelines based on evidence from INFORM \[1\]. An expert consensus process was used to refine guidelines using RAND/UCLA criteria. The guidelines were then implemented over a 12-month period through a Learning Collaborative of 24 healthcare professionals from 12 orthopaedic centres in England. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 members of the collaborative and findings used to inform the development of an implementation support toolkit. Patient and public involvement contextualised the implementation of the guidelines. The study is registered with the ISCRTN (34710385). The INFORM guidelines, structured around the stages of PJI management, were largely supported by surgeons, although barriers included limited awareness among non-surgical team members, lack of job planning for multidisciplinary teams, and challenges in ensuring timely referrals from primary care. Psychological support for patients was identified as a critical gap. Advanced Nurse Practitioners and multidisciplinary team (MDT) coordinators were seen as potential bridges to address these knowledge gaps. The guidelines were also viewed as a useful tool for service development. This study presents the first evidence-based guidelines for hip PJI management, offering a comprehensive approach to prevention, treatment, and postoperative care. Effective implementation is crucial, involving wider dissemination amongst primary and community care, as well as non-specialist treatment centres. Further resources are needed to ensure job planning for MDTs and psychological support for patients. Overall, this study lays the foundation for improved PJI management, benefiting patients and healthcare systems

Aims. Urgent referral to a specialist centre for patients with a soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) has been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK since 2006. However, the impact of this recommendation on the prognosis for these patients remains unclear. We aimed to determine the impact of the NICE guidelines on the disease-specific survival (DSS) of patients with an STS. Methods. A total of 2,427 patients with an STS referred to a supraregional centre in the ten-year periods before (n = 1,386) and after (n = 1,041) the issue of the NICE guidelines were evaluated. Results. The mean size of the tumour was significantly smaller at the time of diagnosis (10.3 cm (SD 6.5) vs 9.1 cm (SD 6.2); p < 0.001) and the number of patients who had undergone an inadvertent excision significantly decreased (28% (n = 389) vs 20% (n = 204); p < 0.001) following the introduction of the NICE guidelines. The five-year DSS was 63% in the pre-NICE and 71% in post-NICE groups (p < 0.001). The improved survival was more significant for those with a high-grade tumour (pre-NICE, 48%; post-NICE, 68%; p < 0.001). In those with a high-grade tumour, the mean size of the tumour (11.6 cm (SD 6.2) vs 9.6 cm (SD 5.8); p < 0.001) and the number of patients with metastasis at the time of diagnosis (15% (n = 124 vs 10% (n = 80); p = 0.007) significantly decreased in the post-NICE group. Conclusion. An improvement in survival was seen after the introduction of the NICE guidelines, especially in patients with a high-grade STS. More patients were referred at an earlier stage, indicating a clearer pathway after the issue of national policy for the management of STSs in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):569–577

Aim. Swedish guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis in arthroplasty surgery recommend cloxacillin in fixed doses that pay little attention to the patient's renal function and weight. Nevertheless, there are no studies on whether the resulting free prophylactic cloxacillin in vivo concentrations are optimal. We aimed to evaluate whether the current recommended prophylactic dosage of cloxacillin is adequate. Method. We performed a prospective two-centre study, measuring the free (active) cloxacillin concentrations in plasma throughout surgery, in patients subject to primary hip and knee prosthetic joint replacements, aiming at 100 patients per centre. To account for plasma-bone exposure differences, concentrations were considered adequate if twice the epidemiological cut-off value for cloxacillin concerning wild type Staphylococcus aureus whereas two-three times were labelled threshold values. The two enrolling hospitals are acute care hospitals in central Sweden, also performing 600 - 1200 primary hip and knee joint arthroplasties annually. All patients scheduled for elective primary hip or knee replacements from January 2022 to April 2024 were eligible for participation. Exclusion criteria were allergy towards penicillins, cognitive disorders leading to inability to sign informed consent, and an absence of interpreter in case of a patient not speaking Swedish or English. Results. We present results from the first 49 patients included. Four patients had free cloxacillin concentrations below cut-off (8.2%). These four cases had prolonged surgeries of 77-100 minutes. An additional 5/49 (10.2%) had threshold values. Conversely 5/49 (10.2%) cases had concentrations exceeding 15 times the needed. No cases with threshold or low cloxacillin concentrations were attributable to a lack of concerning timing and dosing of cloxacillin. All concentrations were above or equal to our cut-off at the start of surgery. Eighteen percent of patients were of normal of weight (BMI 18.5- 25). Of the rest 4% were morbidly obese (BMI >40), 41% obese (BMI 30-40) and 37% overweight (BMI 25-30). Twenty seven percent (43/159) had diabetes and 45% suffered cardiac disease. Conclusions. Some patients in our cohort had insufficient active cloxacillin levels at the end of prosthetic joint surgery. Previous studies indicate that insufficient prophylactic antibiotic concentrations might lead to an enhanced risk of prosthetic joint infections. Other patients were massively overdosed, leading to unnecessary ecological effects and potentially adverse reactions. As inadequate cloxacillin concentrations were not associated with a lack of compliance to current guidelines a change in practise might be needed. Our final results may help to determine how dosing should be adjusted

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the consensus best practice approach for the investigation and management of children (aged 0 to 15 years) in the UK with musculoskeletal infection (including septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, pyomyositis, tenosynovitis, fasciitis, and discitis). This consensus can then be used to ensure consistent, safe care for children in UK hospitals and those elsewhere with similar healthcare systems. Methods. A Delphi approach was used to determine consensus in three core aspects of care: 1) assessment, investigation, and diagnosis; 2) treatment; and 3) service, pathways, and networks. A steering group of paediatric orthopaedic surgeons created statements which were then evaluated through a two-round Delphi survey sent to all members of the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS). Statements were only included (‘consensus in’) in the final agreed consensus if at least 75% of respondents scored the statement as critical for inclusion. Statements were discarded (‘consensus out’) if at least 75% of respondents scored them as not important for inclusion. Reporting these results followed the Appraisal Guidelines for Research and Evaluation. Results. A total of 133 children’s orthopaedic surgeons completed the first survey, and 109 the second. Out of 43 proposed statements included in the initial Delphi, 32 reached ‘consensus in’, 0 ‘consensus out’, and 11 ‘no consensus’. These 11 statements were then reworded, amalgamated, or deleted before the second Delphi round of eight statements. All eight were accepted as ‘consensus in’, resulting in a total of 40 approved statements. Conclusion. In the many aspects of medicine where relevant evidence is not available for clinicians to base their practice, a Delphi consensus can provide a strong body of opinion that acts as a benchmark for good quality clinical care. We would recommend clinicians managing children with musculoskeletal infection follow the guidance in the consensus statements in this article, to ensure care in all medical settings is consistent and safe. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):815–820

The Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association established the Sarcoma Guidelines Working Party to develop national guidelines for the management of Sarcoma. We asked whether surgery at a specialised centre improves outcomes. A systematic review was performed of all available evidence pertaining to paediatric or adult patients treated for bone or soft tissue sarcoma at a specialised centre compared with non-specialised centres. Outcomes assessed included local control, limb salvage rate, 30-day and 90-day surgical mortality, and overall survival. Definitive surgical management at a specialised sarcoma centre improves local control as defined by margin negative surgery, local or locoregional recurrence, and local recurrence free survival. Limb conservation rates are higher at specialised centres, due in part to the depth of surgical experience and immediate availability of multidisciplinary and multimodal therapy. A statistically significant correlation did not exist for 30-day and 90-day mortality between specialised centres and non-specialised centres. The literature is consistent with improved survival when definitive surgical treatment is performed at a specialised sarcoma centre. Evidence-based recommendation: Patients with suspected sarcoma to be referred to a specialised sarcoma centre for surgical management to reduce the risk of local recurrence, surgical complication, and to improve limb conservation and survival. Practice point: Patients with suspected sarcoma should be referred to a specialised sarcoma centre early for management including planned biopsy

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study. . Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores. . These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe variation in hip fracture treatment in Norway expressed as adherence to international and national evidence-based treatment guidelines, to study factors influencing deviation from guidelines, and to analyze consequences of non-adherence. Methods. International and national guidelines were identified and treatment recommendations extracted. All 43 hospitals routinely treating hip fractures in Norway were characterized. From the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR), hip fracture patients aged > 65 years and operated in the period January 2014 to December 2018 for fractures with conclusive treatment guidelines were included (n = 29,613: femoral neck fractures (n = 21,325), stable trochanteric fractures (n = 5,546), inter- and subtrochanteric fractures (n = 2,742)). Adherence to treatment recommendations and a composite indicator of best practice were analyzed. Patient survival and reoperations were evaluated for each recommendation. Results. Median age of the patients was 84 (IQR 77 to 89) years and 69% (20,427/29,613) were women. Overall, 79% (23,390/29,613) were treated within 48 hours, and 80% (23,635/29,613) by a surgeon with more than three years’ experience. Adherence to guidelines varied substantially but was markedly better in 2018 than in 2014. Having a dedicated hip fracture unit (OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.11) and a hospital hip fracture programme (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) increased the probability of treatment according to best practice. Surgery after 48 hours increased one-year mortality significantly (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; p = 0.001). Alternative treatment to arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) increased mortality after 30 days (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.62)) and one year (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.72), and also increased the number of reoperations (OR 4.61, 95% CI 3.73 to 5.71). An uncemented stem increased the risk of reoperation significantly (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; p = 0.030). Conclusion. Our study demonstrates a substantial variation between hospitals in adherence to evidence-based guidelines for treatment of hip fractures in Norway. Non-adherence can be ascribed to in-hospital factors. Poor adherence has significant negative consequences for patients in the form of increased mortality rates at 30 and 365 days post-treatment and in reoperation rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:644–653

Background and aims. The EU-funded Back-UP project aims to develop a cloud computer platform to guide the treatment of low back and neck pain (LBNP) in first contact care and early rehabilitation. In order to identify evidence-based treatment options that can be recommended and are accessible to people with LBNP across Europe, we conducted a systematic review of recently published guidelines. Methods. Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, Epistemonikos, PEDro, TRIP, NICE, SIGN, WHO, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) and DynaMed Plus were searched. We searched for guidelines published by European health professional or guideline development organisations since 2013, focusing on the primary care management of adult patients presenting with back or neck pain (including whiplash associated symptoms, radicular pain, and pregnancy-related LBP). The AGREE-II tool was used to assess the quality of guideline development and reporting. Results. Searches generated 3098 unique citations that were screened for eligibility. A total of 189 full-texts were retrieved, and 18 guidelines were included in the review (from the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands). Data extraction showed considerable variation in guideline development processes, especially regarding the methods used for identifying, appraising, and synthesising evidence, and for formulating, agreeing, and grading recommendations. Conclusions. Recommendations for the management of LBNP cover a wide range of treatment options, with self-management advice, analgesics, and exercise proposed as core treatments by most guidelines. A narrative synthesis, taking into account consistency, strength, and quality of guideline recommendations, will be presented. No conflicts of interest. Funding: This abstract presents independent research within the Back-UP project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 777090. This document reflects only the views of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of its contents. The information in this document is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind, and accept no liability for loss or damage suffered by any person using this information

Abstract. Background. In 2018 NICE produced their guidelines with regards to the prevention of hospital-acquired thrombosis which extended the age range to include 16- and 17-years old patients, suggesting that these patients are risk assessed and receive thromboprophylaxis if indicated. We analysed the incidence of VTE in this age group in our institution and found it to be extremely low and often not related to risk factors commonly included in adult risk assessment tools. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 13,951 patients aged 16- and 17-years of age in our admission database at the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) over a period of 7 years between 2013 and 2019. This was cross-referenced with our imaging database which identified scans carried out for suspected Venous Thromboembolism (VTE). Results. There were 1,275 admissions and 12,676-day-case attendances over the study period. Of these, 145 patients had scans for suspected VTE. 13 patients had positive scans and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of the 13 positive scans, 10 were excluded and 3 patients were included in the study. Conclusion. This study shows that the risk of VTE in the 16- and 17-year-old age group is extremely low in patients attending hospital (0.1% in admitted patients and 0.007% in day attenders). We question whether routine risk assessment for VTE in this age group, especially using existing adult tools, is efficacious. The guidance acknowledges the evidence for prescribed drugs is both lacking and the prescription for such agents being outside their Licencing Authorisation

Open talus fracture are notoriously difficult to manage and they are commonly associated with a high level of complications including non-union, avascular necrosis and infection. Currently, the management of such injuries is based upon BOAST 4 guidelines although there is no suggested definitive management, thus definitive management is based upon surgeon preference. The key principles of open talus fracture management which do not vary between surgeons, however, there is much debate over whether the talus should be preserved or removed after open talus fracture/dislocation and proceeded to tibiocalcaneal fusion. A review of electronic hospital records for open talus fractures from 2014-2021 returned foureen patients with fifteen open talus fractures. Seven cases were initially managed with ORIF, five cases were definitively managed with FUSION, while the others were managed with alternative methods. We collected patient's age, gender, surgical complications, surgical risk factors and post-treatment functional ability and pain and compliance with BOAST guidelines. The average follow-up of the cohort was four years and one month. EQ-5D-5L and FAAM-ADL/Sports score was used as a patient reported outcome measure. Data was analysed using the software PRISM. Comparison between FUSION and ORIF groups showed no statistically significant difference in EQ-5D-5L score (P = 0.13), FAAM-ADL (P = 0.20), FAAM-Sport (P = 0.34), infection rate (P = 0.55), surgical times (P = 0.91) and time to weight bearing (P = 0.39), despite a higher proportion of polytrauma and Hawkins III and IV fractures in the FUSION group. FUSION is typically used as second line to ORIF or failed ORIF. However, there are a lack of studies that directly compared outcome in open talus fracture patients definitively managed with FUSION or ORIF. Our results demonstrate for the first time, that FUSION may not be inferior to ORIF in terms of patient functional outcome, infection rate, and quality-of-life, in the management of patients with open talus fracture patients. Of note, as open talus fractures have increased risks of complications such as osteonecrosis and non-union, FUSION should be considered as a viable option to mitigate these potential complications in these patients

We aimed to collate guidelines for preoperative marking in orthopaedic surgery, identify areas of convergence and difference and relate them to previous work on guideline effectiveness. We performed a systematic search of Medline and Google using ‘correct site’, ‘wrong site’, ‘marking’, ‘surgery’, ‘orthopaedics’ and ‘guidelines’. Orthopaedic societies and bodies, personal knowledge and unindexed conference abstracts were also used. We found nine guidelines from ten institutions in seven different countries; UK National Patient Safety Agency/Royal College of Surgeons of England, Australian College of Surgeons, JCAHO (USA), Canadian Orthopaedic Association, Veterans Health Association (USA), Copenhagen Hospital Corporation, German Coalition for Patient Safety, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. We identified four ‘core-steps’ common to the majority of guidelines. Firstly, using indelible pen. Secondly, the operating surgeon should mark the patient. Thirdly, the patient should be involved in confirming side/site. Finally, a ‘time-out’ before starting the procedure. Only one of the ‘core steps’ is carried out in theatre. The others are carried out before theatre emphasising the importance of accurately identifying and marking early in the patient’s journey. Common sense suggests guidelines should be simple, user friendly and quick to complete. Making guidelines compatible with existing values and not deviating from existing routines are recognised to increase their use. Guidelines issued by practitioners’ own professional bodies are likely to have more impact than those from outside the profession. However increasing the number of items a guideline contains does not necessarily make it better or safer. The four core steps we identified are the basis for any marking guideline. It is reasonable to assume that incorporating the guidance into clinical orthopaedic practice will further improve safety. Future work should focus on establishing the relative impact of each guideline aspect

Nice guidelines recommend VTE prophylaxis to patients in below knee casts following foot and ankle surgery following risk assessment. The guidelines are controversial and BOFAS recommendations reiterate the risk factors but highlight poor evidence to support these guidelines. Implementation has been variable dependent on interpretation. 58 patients who underwent hindfoot procedures and were immobilised in a cast were identified. These patients were under the care of two consultants, one of whom anticoagulates with daily enoxaparin and one who does not, providing a de facto case-control design. The patients were followed up to identify those who subsequently suffered a DVT or PE, and the clinical circumstances. 2 cases of VTE events were noted in 58 patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. Both were elective cases managed postoperatively in cast and treated with prophylaxic enoxaparin. Both of these presented to hospital with signs of VTE greater than 6 weeks following surgery after cast removal and discontinuation of enoxaparin. No patients were considered high risk according to NICE guidelines. None of the patients who received no thromboprophylaxis had a clinical DVT. Within our study group we found that VTE thromboprophylaxis does not influence clinically evident VTE rates. Patients who developed VTE were not considered high risk by definition of NICE guidelines but only at increased risk due to their immobility. The VTE events were initiated while the patients were receiving thromboprophylaxis. The effectiveness of the guidelines in predicting patients who would benefit from chemoprophylaxis is questionable from this study. NICE guidelines on VTE thromboprophylaxis have been received with some concerns. Although this investigation studied only a relatively small number of patients, it raises issues about the clinical effectiveness of the guidelines in foot and ankle patients

After decades of clinical experience and hundreds of studies, the ideal method of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis remains controversial. One of the most widely quoted publications on the subject in recent years has been the guidelines published by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). The seventh and eighth ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis were published in Chest in 2004 and 2008 respectively. The highest level recommendation (1-A) was reserved for Warfarin at a relatively high dose (target international normalised ratio (INR) of 2–3), Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH), or Fondaparinux for a minimum of 10 days for both total hip and total knee replacement. These agents were recommended for all patients, regardless of their relative risk of bleeding or risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). These recommendations were found to be aggressive by the standards of most orthopaedic surgeons and a number of issues were identified with the methodology and resulting recommendations of the ACCP including: The emphasis on multicentre randomised clinical trials that are enormously expensive and strongly weighted towards pharmaceutical sponsored studies, methodology that prevented inclusion of studies of lower cost, lower tech options such as aspirin or lower dose Warfarin since randomised trials on a large scale are not available due to lack of funding or pharmaceutical company interest in generic low-cost options, lack of consideration of pneumatic compression options such as newly available mobile foot pumps with chips for monitoring compliance, financial conflict of interest of virtually all of the authors of the guidelines and the fundamental problem with utilising asymptomatic DVT as a study endpoint. The concerns with the aggressive nature of these recommendations were confirmed by studies from two academic centres which reported a high incidence of wound and bleeding complications when changing to a 1-A protocol. Recent studies indicate that readmissions following joint replacement are much more likely to be due to wound drainage and bleeding complications than DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE). In response to these concerns, the AAOS released guidelines in 2008 that were updated in 2011. The resulting recommendations represented a dramatic departure from the ACCP guidelines. Clinically crucial endpoints such as PE and death were utilized in the analysis rather than asymptomatic DVT, which was the criteria utilised by the Chest Physicians and the 2011 recommendations also considered symptomatic DVT. The AAOS guidelines consider patient risk category rather than making a uniform recommendation for all patients. Much more discretion is given to surgeons to utilise less aggressive prophylactic strategies including aspirin and foot pumps. In 2012, the ninth edition of the ACCP guidelines was published and many of the concerns previously expressed over prior editions were successfully addressed. Conflict of interest among the authors was much less of an issue, there was more attention placed on symptomatic events and clinically important complications, and a wider scope of literature was considered. The resulting guidelines represented a dramatic departure from previous recommendations. Aspirin and pneumatic compression were elevated to level 1 recommendation status along with potent drug regimens such as injectable drugs (LMWH and Xa inhibitor) as well as the new oral Xa inhibitors and antithrombin agents. When pneumatic compression devices are utilised, the use of a battery powered device capable of recording compliance was recommended. Patient risk status as well as patient preference were also considered. The new ACCP guidelines have successfully addressed many of the concerns previously addressed and are much more in line with the AAOS guidelines. It is anticipated that the federal Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) guidelines for VTE prophylaxis will be released in 2013 and will also embrace the changes recommended by the ACCP. It is further likely that the AAOS and ACCP guidelines are close enough that they may well join forces in the near future and release a single unified document

Abstract. Introduction. Spinal local anaesthesia and opioids have long been used as peri-operative analgesia for patients undergoing arthroplasty procedures. However, intrathecal opioids are associated with numerous complications. ERAS. ®. society guidelines for elective knee replacement (2019) strongly discourage the use of spinal opioids. This study aims to report the impact of low-dose spinal and local infiltrative analgesia on patients undergoing elective knee replacement. Methodology. Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing knee replacement under the ERAS protocol over 2 years, at a district general hospital under the care of a single surgeon. Results. A total of 80 knee replacements were included in the study (M38:F42, mean age=72.7, mean BMI=31, ASA: 1=8, 2=54, 3=18). 91% received neuroaxial anaesthesia, 89% without intrathecal opioids. Local infiltrative analgesia was used in 99% of patients. The mean length of stay was significantly shorter (2 days), when compared to patients undergoing elective knee replacements without adherence to ERAS. ®. guidance (3.8 days), P<0.001. The average maximum pain score in PACU was 0.8 (0=no pain, 10=maximum pain). All patients were mobilised within 24 hours of surgery. No patients were readmitted within 30 days. 2 patients returned to theatre (retained surgical clip and MUA for stiffness). Conclusions. The implementation of ERAS. ®. guidelines has demonstrated significantly reduced admission days following elective knee arthroplasty. Combined with low complication rates, the reduction in admission days may result in increased hospital bed availability. This has the potential to positively impact elective arthroplasty waiting lists. Further research is underway to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures in this group

Virtual Fracture Clinic (VFC) is a consultant-led orthopaedic trauma outpatient triage and management service. The use of VFC has recently become commonplace in the United Kingdom. It allows multiple referral sources to the orthopaedic team, with clinical information and imaging reviewed by a consultant in VFC who formulates an appropriate management plan with the patient contacted; either to attend clinic for consultation or discharged with advice over the phone. The VFC is more efficient than a traditionally delivered outpatient fracture clinic service. We have utilized VFC for 1 year at our hospital, East Kent University Hospital Foundation Trust (EKHUFT), and undertook a closed loop audit to evaluate the service and highlight potential areas of improvement. The Objective of the study was to identify whether the implementation of new re-designed VFC referral guidelines together with teaching set across one of the hospitals in EKHUFT improved the effectiveness and standards of VFC referrals. An initial audit was performed of all referrals made to VFC over a 2 weeks period in December 2018. Changes to the VFC referral pathway were implemented, and teaching sessions performed by the orthopaedic team to all referring units, including minor injury units (MIU) and the emergency department (ED). After implementation, re-audit of VFC referrals was performed in February 2019 over a similar 2 weeks period. Patient demographics, diagnosis and outcomes were collected from the online patient record with images reviewed using PACS software. Following intervention, referral rates dropped by 27.7% (136 vs 188 patients) over the 2 weeks periods. Patient demographics, injury type and severity remained the same between the 2 groups. 51.5% (70/136) did not meet VFC pathway criteria after the intervention and were considered inappropriate, compared to 70% in the original group. 15.4% (21/136) referrals could have been managed in the emergency department using the new guidelines and leaflet discharge. 5.1% (7/136) of the referrals should have been referred to orthopaedic on-call acutely and 22% (30/136) of the referrals had a soft tissue injury or no injury identified. This did not change between the 2 groups despite intervention. Referring MIU and ED units require continued support and teaching over a prolonged time period to hopefully see further improvements. Immediate hot reporting of radiographs may further benefit the service, but staffing and funding issues particularly out of hours, means this remains an aspiration

Patients with cancer and bone metastases can have an increased risk of fracturing their femur. Treatment is based on the impending fracture risk: patients with a high fracture risk are considered for prophylactic surgery, whereas low fracture risk patients are treated conservatively with radiotherapy to decrease pain. Current clinical guidelines suggest to determine fracture risk based on axial cortical involvement of the lesion on conventional radiographs, but that appears to be difficult. Therefore, we developed a patient-specific finite element (FE) computer model that has shown to be able to predict fracture risk in an experimental setting and in patients. The goal of this study was to determine whether patient-specific finite element (FE) computer models are better at predicting fracture risk for femoral bone metastases compared to clinical assessments based on axial cortical involvement on conventional radiographs, as described in current clinical guidelines. 45 patients (50 affected femurs) affected with predominantly lytic bone metastases who were treated with palliative radiotherapy for pain were included. CT scans were made and patients were followed for six months to determine whether or not they fractured their femur. Non-linear isotropic FE models were created with the patient-specific geometry and bone density obtained from the CT scans. Subsequently, an axial load was simulated on the models mimicking stance. Failure loads normalized for bodyweight (BW) were calculated for each femur. High and low fracture risks were determined using a failure load of 7.5 × BW as a threshold. Experienced assessors measured axial cortical involvement on conventional radiographs. Following clinical guidelines, patients with lesions larger than 30 mm were identified as having a high fracture risk. FE predictions were compared to clinical assessments by means of diagnostic accuracy values (sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV)). Seven femurs (14%) fractured during follow-up. Median time to fracture was 8 weeks. FE models were better at predicting fracture risk in comparison to clinical assessments based on axial cortical involvement (sensitivity 100% vs. 86%, specificity 74% vs. 42%, PPV 39% vs. 19%, and NPV 100% vs. 95%, for the FE computer model vs. axial cortical involvement, respectively). We concluded that patient-specific FE computer models improve fracture risk predictions of femoral bone metastases in advanced cancer patients compared to clinical assessments based on axial cortical involvement, which is currently used in clinical guidelines. Therefore, we are initiating a pilot for clinical implementation of the FE model

Patients who present with a fractured neck of femur (NOF) have a significant rate of morbidity and mortality. In 2011, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published clinical guidelines in order to improve these rates. Within this guideline NICE state that surgery should be performed on all NOF fractures within 36 hours. Within ABMU Health board the 1000 Lives Campaign goes a step further and aims to operate on 90% of patients within 24 hours. This study investigates the effect of an additional NOF theatre list on compliance to these national guidelines. This retrospective study was performed between October-December 2013 and December-February 2015. The first period of data collection represents a daily trauma list whilst the second period allowed an additional NOF theatre list. Data was collected using the National Hip Fracture Database and the Trauma Theatre List. The number of patients meeting the national guidelines increased with the presence of an additional theatre list (75.19% v 60%). This represents a reduction to the average time to theatre of 4 hours and 30 minutes (29:47 v 34:17). The additional theatre list improved prioritisation of patients with NOF fractures on the list (29.46% v 13.33% listed first on list) and reduced the rate of cancellations (19.38 v 29.17%). During this study Morriston Hospital did not meet national guidelines, however an additional theatre list did significantly improve average time to theatre. This study highlights the significant impact a dedicated NOF fracture theatre list can have. Winner – Best Paper Award

Symptomatic and asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication of knee replacement, with an incidence of up to 85% in the absence of prophylaxis. National guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in knee replacement are derived from total knee replacement (TKR) data. No guidelines exist specific to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We investigated whether the type of knee arthroplasty (TKR or UKR) was related to the incidence of DVT and discuss the applicability of existing national guidelines for prophylaxis following UKR. . Data were collected prospectively on 3449 knee replacements, including procedure type, tourniquet time, surgeon, patient age, use of drains and gender. These variables were related to the incidence of symptomatic DVT. The overall DVT rate was 1.6%. The only variable that had an association with DVT was operation type, with TKR having a higher incidence than UKR (2.2% versus 0.3%, p < 0.001). These data show that the incidence of DVT after UKR is both clinically and statistically significantly lower than that after TKR. . TKR and UKR patients have different risk profiles for symptomatic DVT. The risk-benefit ratio for TKR that has been used to produce national guidelines may not be applicable to UKR. Further research is required to establish the most appropriate form of prophylaxis for UKR