Introduction

Computer navigation is a highly sophisticated tool in orthopedic surgery for component placement in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A number of recommendations have been published. Although Lewinnek's safe-zone is the best-known among these its significance is questioned in recent years since it addresses the acetabular socket only ignoring the femoral stem. Modern target definitions consider both socket and stem and provide well-defined recommendations for complementary component positioning. We present a new small-sized hand-held imageless navigation system that implies these targets and supports the surgeon in realizing the concept of combined anteversion and combined Target-Zone (cTarget- Zone) in THA and to control leg length and offset without altering the standard surgical work-flow and we report initial results.

Aims. Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites. Methods. A multidisciplinary surgical prioritization committee developed the SPAG, incorporating procedural urgency, shared decision-making, patient safety, and biopsychosocial factors; and applied it to 1,142 adult patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery. Patients were stratified into four priority groups and underwent surgery at three COVID-free sites, including one with access to a high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU) and specialist resources. Safety was assessed by the number of patients requiring inpatient postoperative HDU/ICU admission, contracting COVID-19 within 14 days postoperatively, and mortality within 30 days postoperatively. Results. A total of 1,142 patients were included, 47 declined surgery, and 110 were deemed high-risk or requiring specialist resources. In the ten-week study period, 28 high-risk patients underwent surgery, during which 68% (13/19) of Priority 2 (P. 2. , surgery within one month) patients underwent surgery, and 15% (3/20) of P. 3. (< three months) and 16% (11/71) of P. 4. (> three months) groups. Of the 1,032 low-risk patients, 322 patients underwent surgery. Overall, 21 P. 3. and P. 4. patients were expedited to ‘Urgent’ based on biopsychosocial factors identified by the SPAG. During the study period, 91% (19/21) of the Urgent group, 52% (49/95) of P. 2. , 36% (70/196) of P. 3. , and 26% (184/720) of P. 4. underwent surgery. No patients died or were admitted to HDU/ICU, or contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. Our widely generalizable model enabled the restart of planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, without compromising patient safety or excluding high-risk or complex cases. Patients classified as Urgent or P. 2. were most likely to undergo surgery, including those deemed high-risk. This model, which includes assessment of biopsychosocial factors alongside disease severity, can assist in equitably prioritizing the substantial list of patients now awaiting planned orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):134–140

As Total Hip Replacement (THR) rates increase healthcare providers have sought to reduce costs, while at the same time improving patient safety and satisfaction. Up to 50% of patients may be appropriate for Day Case THR, and in appropriately selected patients’ studies show no increase in complication rate while affording a significant cost saving and maintaining a high rate of patient satisfaction. Despite the potential benefits, levels of adoption of Day Case THR vary. A common cause for this is the perception that doing so would require the adoption of new surgical techniques, implants, or theatre equipment. We report on a Day-Case THR pathway in centres with an established and well-functioning Enhanced Recovery pathway, utilising the posterior approach and standard implants and positioning. We prospectively collected the data on consecutive THRs performed by a single surgeon between June 2018 and July 2021. A standardised anaesthetic regimen using short acting spinal was used. Surgical data included approach, implants, operative time, and estimated blood loss. Outcome data included time of discharge from hospital, post operative complications, readmissions, and unscheduled health service attendance. Data was gathered on 120 consecutive DCTHRs in 114 patients. 93% of patients were successfully discharged on the day of surgery. Four patients required re-admission: one infection treated with DAIR, one dislocation, one wound ooze admitted for a day of monitoring, one gastric ulcer. One patient had a short ED attendance for hypertension. Our incidence of infection, dislocation and wound problems were similar to those seen in inpatient THR. Out data show that the widely used posterior approach using standard positioning and implants can be used effectively in a Day Case THR pathway, with no increase in failure of same-day discharge or re-admission to hospital

Introduction. Frame HI is the #Days for device removal/cm. IM Nail HI is less relevant (31–45 D/cm). Albizzia HI was 33 D/cm (1991–2003). Patients felt fine approximately 1M after end of lengthening (EoL), resuming normal life and sports. This sometimes resulted in implants fractures (e.g. skying before bone fusion). Ideally, the full fusion should occur at the EoL. We decided to shorten the HI to reach this target, optimising all parameters. Materials & Methods. The evolution of care has been monitored over a 32-year clinical experience with a fully weight-bearing nails (Albizzia then G-nail). Monitoring was with X-rays, DEXA, blood bone activity, and in London with special 5G CBCT Scans. We implemented several changes in the Care of patients and measured them according to the ‘Five Principles’ (stability, function, ‘Roads-vascular supply’, ‘Materials-calories’ and ‘Workers-BFC’, with actions on food intake, activity levels and on muscle and bone vascular growths. Results. Preop: training (vascularity, muscle force). Op & Postop: spine morphine, IM sawing preserving BFC, controlled hypo-pressure, low hydration, 50 cm leg elevation, walking, resistance bike, full motion (drainage, muscle reactivation), discharge 3–4h postop (including bilateral). Postop daily intense gym training. POD07-21: Distraction increased to fight non-linear hyper-ossification (44–50 mm gain at POD30) +/- aided by NSAIDs. HI decreased to 12–20D/cm, sometimes 8D/cm with some ‘soft fusion’ during lengthening, hardening within 1W after EoL. Conclusions. The surgeon is not a passive X-rays observer, but has an active role in changing the healing speed and decreasing HI for patient safety. Electro/Magnetic nails (torque 1 Nm) may be clocked by bone fusion, which does not occur with the G-Nail (19 Nm). An holistic vision for patients and treatments at several levels is essential to accelerate bone healing, and to return fast to full normal life, after a short ‘lengthening parenthesis’

INTRODUCTION. Simulation plays an important role in surgical education and the ability to perfect surgical performance. Simulation can be enhanced by adding various layers of realism to the experience. Haptic feedback enhances the simulation experience by providing tactile responses and virtual reality imagery provides an immersive experience and allows for greater appreciation of three-dimensional structures. In this study, we present a proof-of-concept haptic simulator to replicate key steps of a cervical laminoplasty procedure. The technology uses affordable components and is easily modifiable so that it can be used from novice through to expert level. Custom models can be easily added ensuring the simulator can be used in a wide range of orthopaedic applications from baseline education through to day of surgery pre-operative simulation. METHOD. We used the Unity Game Engine, the 3D Systems “Touch” Haptic Feedback Device (HFD), and a Meta Quest VR headset. Our system uses a number of complex algorithms to track the shape and provide haptic feedback of a virtual bone model. This allows for simulation of various tools including a high-speed burr, Kerrison rongeur and intraoperative X-rays. RESULTS. Our simulator replicates the tactile sensations of bone-burring tasks. Although we focused on the cervical laminoplasty procedure, the system can load data from CT scans, enabling the simulation of multiple other procedures. The parts cost of our system, $10,000 NZD, is a fraction of the cost of traditional surgical simulators. DISCUSSION. Our simulator reduces financial barriers to accessing orthopaedic simulators. Trainees can perform hands-on practice without compromising patient safety. The immersive nature of VR, combined with realistic haptic feedback, enables trainees to develop the dexterity and three-dimensional understanding of detailed bony work. Further refinements are needed before we can perform validation studies on our system. CONCLUSIONS. We present an affordable surgical simulator capable of simulating bony surgical procedures in a VR environment using haptic feedback technology and consumer-grade components. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This research was made possible by the generosity of the Wishbone Trust

Aim. Hand-disinfection (HD) is the most effective infection-prevention-measure. HD-performance of health care professionals (HCP) is usually evaluated by compliance observations (CO). The Hawthorne effect (HE) (HCP behave differently under observation) is considered to systematically increase HD-compliance-rates during CO. However, little is known about the specifications of the HE in health care settings. We hypothesized that, due to hand-hygiene`s known impact on patient safety and infection-prevention, the HE does not affect HD performance during direct patient care in patient-rooms. Method. We conducted a prospective observational trial on an 18-bed surgical intensive care unit (ICU), a 12-bed surgical intermediate care unit (IMC) and a 36-bed surgical normal ward (NW) in a university hospital in Germany. Dispensers of hand sanitizers were equipped with an electronic monitoring system (EMS) (GWA Hygiene, Germany), which recorded the number of HDs per patient hour (HD/PH) and time and location of hand-disinfections. Locations were categorized as follows: 1. Patient rooms (PR); 2. Utility- and waste-disposal-rooms (UWR) and 3. Other rooms (hallways, kitchen, toilets etc.) (OR). Additionally trained infection-control-staff performed hand-hygiene CO according to WHO's Five Moments. The HD/PH during CO was compared to the HD/PH during the same time-periods without CO. Additionally the ratio between HD/PD-change during CO and mean-HD/PD of each ward during the study-period was determined in percentages. Descriptive and analytical statistics were calculated using R. P-values ≤ 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results. 587.128 HD were electronically recorded during the study-period (February 2022 to May 2023) and CO took place on 72 days. We recorded a significant increase of HD/PH during CO on all three wards in PRs (ICU: 21%, p<0.001; IMC: 11%, p=0.029; NW: 49%, p=0.047). Furthermore we detected a significant increase of HD/PH during CO on ICU (10%, p<0.001) and IMC (11%, p=0.033) in ORs. CO did not significantly affect HD/PH in ORs on NW and in UWR on all three wards. Conclusions. In our setting, the number of hand-disinfections per patient-hour was significantly increased during compliance-observations especially in patient-rooms, where hand-hygiene is most crucial for infection-prevention. This indicates a lower everyday compliance to WHO`s hand-hygiene indications during patient care than determined by compliance-observations. Acknowledgments. Paul-Hartmann AG financially supported this study

Excessive resident duty hours (RDH) are a recognized issue with implications for physician well-being and patient safety. A major component of the RDH concern is on-call duty. While considerable work has been done to reduce resident call workload, there is a paucity of research in optimizing resident call scheduling. Call coverage is scheduled manually rather than demand-based, which generally leads to over-scheduling to prevent a service gap. Machine learning (ML) has been widely applied in other industries to prevent such issues of a supply-demand mismatch. However, the healthcare field has been slow to adopt these innovations. As such, the aim of this study was to use ML models to 1) predict demand on orthopaedic surgery residents at a level I trauma centre and 2) identify variables key to demand prediction. Daily surgical handover emails over an eight year (2012-2019) period at a level I trauma centre were collected. The following data was used to calculate demand: spine call coverage, date, and number of operating rooms (ORs), traumas, admissions and consults completed. Various ML models (linear, tree-based and neural networks) were trained to predict the workload, with their results compared to the current scheduling approach. Quality of models was determined by using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) and accuracy of the predictions. The top ten most important variables were extracted from the most successful model. During training, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy was the multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) model, with an AUC of 0.78±0.03 and accuracy of 71.7%±3.1%. During testing, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy was the neural network model, with an AUC of 0.81 and accuracy of 73.7%. All models were better than the current approach, which had an AUC of 0.50 and accuracy of 50.1%. Key variables used by the neural network model were (descending order): spine call duty, year, weekday/weekend, month, and day of the week. This was the first study attempting to use ML to predict the service demand on orthopaedic surgery residents at a major level I trauma centre. Multiple ML models were shown to be more appropriate and accurate at predicting the demand on surgical residents as compared to the current scheduling approach. Future work should look to incorporate predictive models with optimization strategies to match scheduling with demand in order to improve resident well being and patient care

Trauma, across the United Kingdom, is managed using several software, paper based lists on Microsoft Word/Excel or Teams. There is usually poor handover or no handover in a standard format- during the on call, in the trauma meetings or in the wards. The software in the market for trauma management are not cost friendly or adaptable to local demands. The alternatives like Microsoft WORD based lists are fraught with their own problems. We endeavoured to make our trauma management effective. A Quality Improvement Project was done. The goals to achieve at end of a year were:. Daily Trauma Handover in standardised format >90%. Ward Handover in standardised format >90%. Availability of outcomes of patients in clinic >80%. Reduction of paper usage >90% at the end of six months. Availability of updated “outliers” information >90% at the weekend ward round. Documentation from the Trauma Meeting > 90%. On-Call documentation in standardised format >90%. Doctor Satisfaction >75% in terms of: ease of us;, searchability of patient; ward round experience; morning trauma meeting experience; handover experience; inter-specialty communication; reliability; daily time saving; on-call time saving; patient care/safety; overall satisfaction. We used Microsoft Sharepoint List to manage our trauma workload and have named the tool as “The List”. The List has achieved all objectives as above in one year's time, except Outlier information which was at 67% in a recent PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycle. The survey showed excellent doctor satisfaction and 90% respondents felt that The List saved an hour or more during the on-call and also during the ward rounds. We conclude that The List is a very powerful tool making trauma meetings efficient and handover effective. It is indigenous, adaptable, safe, sustainable, cost neutral and easy to use

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has had a significant impact on trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) departments worldwide. To manage the peak of the epidemic, orthopaedic staff were redeployed to frontline medical care; these roles included managing minor injury units, forming a “proning” team, and assisting in the intensive care unit (ICU). In addition, outpatient clinics were restructured to facilitate virtual consultations, elective procedures were cancelled, and inpatient hospital admissions minimized to reduce nosocomial COVID-19 infections. Urgent operations for fractures, infection and tumours went ahead but required strict planning to ensure patient safety. Orthopaedic training has also been significantly impacted during this period. This article discusses the impact of COVID-19 on T&O in the UK and highlights key lessons learned that may help to proactively prepare for the next global pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:420–423

Background. Effectiveness of computer-assisted joint replacement (CA-TJR) compared to conventional TJR has been evaluated by a large body of literature. Systematic reviews provide a powerful, widely accepted, evidence-based approach to synthesize the evidence and derive conclusions, yet the strength of these conclusions is dependent on the quality of the review. Multiple systematic reviews compared CA-TJR and conventional TJR with conflicting results. We aimed to assess the quality of these reviews. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane, and Epistemonikos to identify SRs published through May 2017. Full-text articles that met inclusion criteria were retrieved and assessed independently by two reviewers. Evidence was qualitatively synthesized and summarized. Outcome measures were categorized into functional, radiological, and patient safety related. The corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to assess the degree of overlap between SRs in analyzing the same primary studies. The AMSTAR 2, a valid and reliable tool, was applied to rate the confidence in the results of the SRs (Shea et al., 2017). AMSTAR-2 has 16 domains, of which 7 are critical (e.g., justification for excluding individual studies) and 9 are non-critical (e.g., not reporting conflict of interest for individual studies). Reviews are rated as high (no critical or non-critical flaws), moderate (only non-critical flaws), low (1 critical flaw) and critically low (more than one critical flaw). Disagreement between the 2 reviewers was resolved by discussion with the senior author to achieve consensus. We reported the quality ratings of these studies and the frequency of critical and non-critical flaws. Results. Of 384 citations originally identified, 37 systematic reviews were included. Meta-analyses that addressed TKA showed discrepancy on functional (e.g. KSS), radiological (mechanical axis malalignment), and patient safety (e.g. adverse events) outcomes. Meta-analyses that addressed THA showed more consistent results. Moderate overlap was observed among TKA SRs (CCA=7%) and very high overlap among THA SRs (CCA=26%). Based on the AMSTAR 2 tool, 35 studies were rated critically low and two studies were rated low. Low rating was due to failure in: developing a review protocol (94.6%); using a comprehensive search strategy (56.8%), providing a list of excluded studies (89%); accounting for risk of bias in the primary RCTs (44%), accounting for the risk of bias of the primary studies when discussing the results (70%), performing appropriate statistical methods (53% for RCTs and 88% for non-RCTs), and adequately investigating publication bias (53%). Conclusions. Given the very low confidence in the results of the SRs comparing CA to conventional total joint arthroplasty, clinicians should interpret the results of these SRs with caution. High methodological quality SRs are needed to inform evidence-based clinical practice

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

Transferring patient data to the care of the oncoming team is the point at which the patient is most vulnerable on their journey through the healthcare system. Effective handover is vital to protect patient safety and has become increasingly more important after introduction of shift patterns for junior doctors following the implementation of the European Working Time Directive. The aim was to assess whether the introduction of a standardised proforma and traffic light system, would improve weekend handover of patients in our orthopaedic unit. Data was collected in the form of hand written data, for 3 months, in our department. This was analysed and a standardised handover sheet and traffic light system to highlight patient priority was introduced. Following a 1 week trial, the proformas were reviewed following feedback from colleagues. A re-audit was commenced and data collected for a further 2 months. There were 108 patients handed over on weekends during the re-audit compared to the 126 in the initial audit. The handover of patient data improved across all areas, with the most improved areas in recording the patients' diagnosis (58.4% to 94.4%) and noting the results of significant or pending investigations (61.2% to 91.7%). The traffic light system improved recording the patient's condition (8.5% to 81.5%) as well as logging the urgency or frequency of patient review (25.9% to 96.8%). Standardised proformas improve patient data transferred at handover and the traffic light system allows improved prioritisation of patients, thus improving patient safety at weekends

Early mobilization within the first 12 hours (day zero) of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been shown to reduce length of stay (LoS) without risking clinical outcomes, patient safety or satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between the degree of mobilization on day zero (i.e., standing at the bedside versus walking in the hallway) and LoS in TJA patients. In addition, we investigated predictors of LoS and day zero mobilization. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of the health records of patients in a community hospital setting who had an elective unilateral primary TJA between June 2015 and May 2017 and had mobilized on day zero. The total sample was 283 patients (184 TKA and 99 THA) across four mobilization categories: Sat on beside (n = 76), Stood by bed/marched in place (n = 83), Walked in the room (n = 79), and Walked in hall (n = 45). Analysis of variance found no significant group differences in age, ASA score, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, anesthesia, surgeon, procedure type, pain medication, and patient reported symptoms recorded by physiotherapists. Significantly more women were in the Sat group and significantly more men were in the Hall group (p < .001). Patient reported symptoms of nausea and drowsiness were significantly greater for the Sat group (p < .001). LoS was also significantly different across the groups. Post hoc Tukey comparisons found the Walked Hall group had significantly shorter LoS (M = 2.7 days) than the Sat group (M = 3.9, p < .001), Stood group (M = 3.4, p = .011), and the Walked Room group (M = 3.5, p = .004). A hierarchical regression was performed to determine predictors of LoS. Block 1 consisted of demographic, medical status, and patient reported symptoms as variables. Mobilization was entered in Block 2. The first model was significant (p < .001) and explained 24% of variance in LoS. The final model was also significant (p < .001), accounting for a total of 26% of the variance in LoS. Thus, block 2 (i.e., mobilization) accounted for a small but significant 2% incremental variance (p = .008) beyond the block 1 variables in the prediction of LoS. With mobilization added, only male gender (p = .002), lower BMI (p = .026), and lower ASA scores (p = .006) remained significant predictors of shorter LoS, and the predictive ability of several of the block 1 variables were reduced to non-significant levels. A simultaneous regression model was then used to predict degree of mobilization. The model accounted for 24% of the variance in mobilization (p < .001). Variables significantly associated with a greater degree of mobilization included: younger age, male gender, lower BMI, and fewer symptoms, namely nausea, numbness, lightheadedness, and drowsiness. This study found length of stay was shorter when patients mobilized farther on the day of surgery. Some factors predictive of mobilization may be modifiable. Focusing on symptom management could increase opportunities for farther mobilization on the day of surgery, and thus decrease length of stay

Aims

Our primary aim was to establish the proportion of female orthopaedic consultants who perform arthroplasty via cases submitted to the National Joint Registry (NJR), which covers England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Guernsey. Secondary aims included comparing time since specialist registration, private practice participation, and number of hospitals worked in between male and female surgeons.

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280

Studies of operation notes have shown they can vary in quality and affect patient safety. This audit compares the quality of operation notes against standards set by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and the British Orthopaedic Association. Information from operation notes was collected prospectively over a two-week period. All operations performed were included and trainees from the region coordinated data collection in 9 hospitals. Data from 1091 operation notes was reviewed. A number of standards were nearly met including legibility (98.4%), the name of operating surgeon (99.3%) and operation title (99.1%). However a number of standards were not met and those with potential patient safety implications include availability on the ward (88.8%), documentation of type of anaesthetic used (78.6%), diagnosis (73.4%) and findings (80.1%). In addition, the postoperative instructions recorded the need for and type of postoperative antibiotics or venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in only 49.7% and 48.8% of cases respectively. The quality of operation notes studied across the region in this period was variable. Software programmes meant some hospitals had better results for date, time and patient identification details. Following this study, awareness of the standards combined with additional local measures may improve the quality of operation notes

Nutritional Status and Short-Term Outcomes Following THA; Initial Metal Ion Levels Predict Risk in MoM THA; THA Bearing Surface Trends in the US ‘07- ’14; Dislocation Following Two-Stage Revision THA; Timing of Primary THA Prior to or After Lumbar Spine Fusion; Failure Rate of Failed Constrained Liner Revision; ESR and CRP vs. Reinfection Risk in Two-Stage Revision?; Mechanical Complications of THA Based on Approach; Impaction Force and Taper-Trunnion Stability in THA; TKA in Patients Less Than 50 Years of Age; Post-operative Mechanical Axis and 20-year TKA Survival and Function; Return to Moderate to High-intensity Sports after UKA; “Running Two Rooms” and Patient Safety in TJA; Varus and Implant Migration and Contact Kinematics after TKA; Quadriceps Snips in 321 Revision TKAs; Tubercle Proximalization for Patella Infera in Revision TKA; Anterior Condylar Height and Flexion in TKA; Compression Bandage Following Primary TKA; Unsupervised Exercise vs. Traditional PT After Primary TKA and UKA

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication. . In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians. Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41

Inaccurate component placement during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can have significant and costly consequences. Malpositioning of the acetabular cup components can lead to dislocation and revision surgery, while postoperative discrepancies in leg length can lead to biomechanical imbalances, causing chronic low back pain. Current methods for monitoring these parameters intraoperatively rely on manual methods such as tissue tensioning or on the surgeon's experience, both of which are subject to inaccuracies. Computer-assisted navigation, while currently used in only a small percentage of THA procedures, is an emerging technology that has the potential to improve the accuracy with which surgeons place components during THA by providing real-time, intraoperative data. One innovative navigation system – Intellijoint HIP. ®. (Intellijoint Surgical, Waterloo, ON) – has demonstrated its accuracy, time-neutrality, safety and effectiveness in clinical studies and has the potential to improve outcomes and reduce re-admissions and revisions during both primary and revision THA. The ability to assist with placement of the cup component at a preoperative target is a hallmark of navigation systems. In studies examining the proportion of cups placed within Lewinnek's safe zone, significantly more cups were placed within this zone with the Intellijoint system than when using traditional methods (anteversion: 58% vs. 37%, p=0.005; inclination: 87% vs. 67%, p=0.002). Similarly, surgeons were better able to place the cup at a functional orientation of 40 degrees inclination/20 degrees anteversion, with a significantly higher proportion of cups placed within 10 degrees of this target while using the Intellijoint system (70%) than during conventional THA (53%, p=0.02). In comparisons with postoperative imaging, the Intellijoint system has demonstrated excellent accuracy. In a recent study, intraoperative measurements of anteversion and inclination were within 3.3 ± 3.1 degrees and 1.1 ± 0.9 degrees, respectively, of postoperative 3D EOS imaging. Results for leg length discrepancy are similarly accurate: across several studies, the mean difference between navigation and radiographic measurements ranged from 0.3 to 4.3mm. Evidence indicates that the 90-day rates of dislocation and revision surgery following primary THA with the Intellijoint system were substantially lower than rates associated with traditional methods. These results hold true following navigation-assisted revision surgery as well. At 90 days, 1 year and 2 years post-procedure, no dislocations were reported. Beyond dislocation, the overall rate of adverse events in cases using Intellijoint has been reported as remarkably low. No device-related fractures have been reported, nor have any instances of postoperative pain at the sites of the surgical pins supporting the camera and/or tracker components. Finally, there is no significant increase in surgical time associated with the use of this device, with a large study comparing navigated THA with traditional THA showing a 2.9-minute increase in procedural time (p=0.60), 1.0 minute of which occurs prior to primary incision (unpublished data). Computer-assisted navigation – and the Intellijoint HIP system specifically – has demonstrated the ability to improve the accuracy with which surgeons implant components during THA without adversely affecting operating room efficiency or patient safety. This technology has the potential to dramatically improve patient-related outcomes in both the short- and long-term and represents the benefits associated with advanced technologies in the operating room

Background. There has been widespread interest in medical errors since the publication of ‘To Err is Human’ by the Institute of Medicine in 1999. The Patient Safety Committee of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has compiled results of a member survey to identify trends in orthopaedic errors that would help direct quality assurance efforts. Methods. Surveys were sent to 5,540 Academy fellows; 917 were returned (response rate 16.6%) with 53% (483/917) reporting an observed medical error in the last 6 months. Results. A general classification of errors showed equipment (29.0%) and communication (24.7%) errors with the highest frequency. Medication errors (11.4%) and wrong site surgery (5.6%) represented serious potential patient harm. Two deaths were reported, both involving narcotic administration errors. By location, 78% of errors occurred in the hospital (surgery suite 54%, patient room/floor 10%). The reporting orthopaedic surgeon was involved in 60% of the errors, nurses in 37%, another orthopaedic surgeon in 19%, other physicians in 16% and housestaff in 13%. Wrong site surgeries involved the wrong side 59%, another wrong site (e.g. wrong digit on the correct side) 23%, the wrong procedure 14%, on the wrong patient 4% of the time. The most frequent anatomic location was the knee and fingers/hand (both 35%), the foot/ankle 15%, followed by distal femur 10% and the spine 5%. Conclusion. Medical errors continue to occur and therefore represent a threat to patient safety. Quality assurance efforts and more refined research can be addressed towards areas with higher error occurrence (equipment, communication) and high risk (medication, wrong site surgery)