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

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the risk of postoperative complications in COVID-19-positive patients undergoing common orthopaedic procedures. Methods. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) database, patients who underwent common orthopaedic surgery procedures from 1 January to 31 December 2021 were extracted. Patient preoperative COVID-19 status, demographics, comorbidities, type of surgery, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Propensity score matching was conducted between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Multivariable regression was then performed to identify both patient and provider risk factors independently associated with the occurrence of 30-day postoperative adverse events. Results. Of 194,121 included patients, 740 (0.38%) were identified to be COVID-19-positive. Comparison of comorbidities demonstrated that COVID-19-positive patients had higher rates of diabetes, heart failure, and pulmonary disease. After propensity matching and controlling for all preoperative variables, multivariable analysis found that COVID-19-positive patients were at increased risk of several postoperative complications, including: any adverse event, major adverse event, minor adverse event, death, venous thromboembolism, and pneumonia. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery were at increased risk of 30-day adverse events. Conclusion. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery had increased odds of many 30-day postoperative complications, with hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery being the most high-risk procedures. These data reinforce prior literature demonstrating increased risk of venous thromboembolic events in the acute postoperative period. Clinicians caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures should be mindful of these increased risks, and attempt to improve patient care during the ongoing global pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):704–712

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting to nine centres over a 50-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 19 April 2020) with a minimum of 50 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, priority (urgent or elective), procedure type, COVID-19 status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. Results. During the study period, 1,659 procedures were performed in 1,569 patients. There were 68 (4.3%) patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. There were 85 (5.4%) deaths postoperatively. Patients who had COVID-19 had a significantly lower survival rate when compared with those without a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection (67.6% vs 95.8%, p < 0.001). When adjusting for confounding variables (older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.004), hip fracture (p = 0.003), and increasing ASA grade (p < 0.001)) a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; p = 0.014). A total of 62 patients developed COVID-19 postoperatively, of which two were in the elective and 60 were in the urgent group. Patients aged > 77 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.16; p = 0.001), with increasing ASA grade (OR 2.74; p < 0.001), sustaining a hip (OR 4.56; p = 0.008) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 14.70; p < 0.001) were more likely to develop COVID-19 postoperatively. Conclusion. Perioperative COVID-19 nearly doubled the background postoperative mortality risk following surgery. Patients at risk of developing COVID-19 postoperatively (patients > 77 years, increasing morbidity, sustaining a hip or periprosthetic fracture) may benefit from perioperative shielding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1774–1781

The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a seven-step checklist that could help in minimising the risk of PJI. The check list includes strategies that can be implemented pre-operatively such as medical optimisation, and reduction of the bioburden by effective skin preparation or actions taking during surgery such as administration of timely and appropriate antibiotics or blood conservation, and finally implementation of post-operative protocols such as efforts to minimise wound drainage and haematoma formation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):18–22

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of screening and successful treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation in elective orthopaedic patients on the subsequent risk of developing a surgical site infection (SSI) with MRSA. We screened 5933 elective orthopaedic in-patients for MRSA at pre-operative assessment. Of these, 108 (1.8%) were colonised with MRSA and 90 subsequently underwent surgery. Despite effective eradication therapy, six of these (6.7%) had an SSI within one year of surgery. Among these infections, deep sepsis occurred in four cases (4.4%) and superficial infection in two (2.2%). The responsible organism in four of the six cases was MRSA. Further analysis showed that patients undergoing surgery for joint replacement of the lower limb were at significantly increased risk of an SSI if previously colonised with MRSA. We conclude that previously MRSA-colonised patients undergoing elective surgery are at an increased risk of an SSI compared with other elective patients, and that this risk is significant for those undergoing joint replacement of the lower limb. Furthermore, when an infection occurs, it is likely to be due to MRSA

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

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

Aims. Physician burnout and its consequences have been recognized as increasingly prevalent and important issues for both organizations and individuals involved in healthcare delivery. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the patterns of self-reported wellness in orthopaedic surgeons and trainees from multiple nations with varying health systems. Methods. A cross-sectional survey of 774 orthopaedic surgeons and trainees in five countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and USA) was conducted in 2019. Respondents were asked to complete the Mayo Clinic Well-Being Index and the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index in addition to 31 personal/demographic questions and 27 employment-related questions via an anonymous online survey. Results. A total of 684 participants from five countries (Australia (n = 74), Canada (n = 90), New Zealand (n = 69), UK (n = 105), and USA (n = 346)) completed both of the risk assessment questionnaires (Mayo and Stanford). Of these, 42.8% (n = 293) were trainees and 57.2% (n = 391) were attending surgeons. On the Mayo Clinic Well-Being Index, 58.6% of the overall sample reported feeling burned out (n = 401). Significant differences were found between nations with regards to the proportion categorized as being at risk for poor outcomes (27.5% for New Zealand (19/69) vs 54.4% for Canada (49/90) ; p = 0.001). On the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index, 38.9% of the respondents were classified as being burned out (266/684). Prevalence of burnout ranged from 27% for Australia (20/74 up to 47.8% for Canadian respondents (43/90; p = 0.010). Younger age groups (20 to 29: RR 2.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 4.58; p = 0.002); 30 to 39: RR 2.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 4.24; p = 0.003); 40 to 49: RR 2.30 (95% CI 1.35 to 3.9; p = 0.002)) and trainee status (RR 1.53 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.03 p = 0.004)) were independently associated with increased relative risk of having a ‘at-risk’ or ‘burnout’ score. Conclusions. The rate of self-reported burnout and risk for poor outcomes among orthopaedic surgeons and trainees varies between countries but remains unacceptably high throughout. Both individual and health system characteristics contribute to physician wellness and should be considered in the development of strategies to improve surgeon wellbeing. Level of Evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):932–939

Aims. The timing of when to remove a circular frame is crucial; early removal results in refracture or deformity, while late removal increases the patient morbidity and delay in return to work. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a staged reloading protocol. We report the incidence of mechanical failure following both single-stage and two stage reloading protocols and analyze the associated risk factors. Methods. We identified consecutive patients from our departmental database. Both trauma and elective cases were included, of all ages, frame types, and pathologies who underwent circular frame treatment. Our protocol is either a single-stage or two-stage process implemented by defunctioning the frame, in order to progressively increase the weightbearing load through the bone, and promote full loading prior to frame removal. Before progression, through the process we monitor patients for any increase in pain and assess radiographs for deformity or refracture. Results. There were 244 frames (230 patients) included in the analyses, of which 90 were Ilizarov type frames and 154 were hexapods. There were 149 frames which underwent single-stage reloading and 95 frames which underwent a two-stage reloading protocol. Mechanical failure occurred after frame removal in 13 frames (5%), which suffered refracture. There were no cases of change in alignment. There was no difference between refracture patients who underwent single-stage or two-stage reloading protocols (p = 0.772). In all, 14 patients had failure prevented through identification with the reloading protocol. Conclusion. Our reloading protocol is a simple and effective way to confirm the timing of frame removal and minimize the rate of mechanical failure. Similar failure rates occurred between patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage reloading protocols. If the surgeon is confident with clinical and radiological assessment, it may be possible to progress directly to stage two and decrease frame time and patient morbidity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):359–366

Introduction. The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method. A retrospective, single centre, observational cohort study of all patients undergoing surgery between 17 March 2020 and 3May 2020 was performed. Outcomes were stratified by British Orthopaedic Association COVID-19 Patient Risk Assessment Tool. Patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at the time of surgery were excluded. Results. Overall, 96 patients assessed as negative for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of surgery underwent 100 emergency or urgent orthopaedic procedures during the study period. Within 30 days of surgery 9.4% of patients (n = 9) were found to be SARS-CoV-2 positive by nasopharyngeal swab. The overall 30 day mortality rate across the whole cohort of patients during this period was 3% (n = 3). Of those testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 66% (n = 6) developed significant COVID-19 related complications and there was a 33% 30-day mortality rate (n = 3). Overall, the 30-day mortality in patients classified as BOA low or medium risk (n = 69) was 0%, whereas in those classified as high or very high risk (n = 27) it was 11.1%. Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgery in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients who transition to positive within 30 days of surgery carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. In lower risk groups, the overall risk of becoming SARS-CoV-2 positive, and subsequently developing a significant postoperative related complication, was low even during the peak of the pandemic. In addition to ensuring patients are SARS-CoV-2 negative at the time of surgery it is important that the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 is minimized through their recovery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:474–480

Aims. COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. Methods. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19. Results. A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019. Conclusion. Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520–529

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

Aims. There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods. A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results. A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion. Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53

Aims. The aim of this study was to surveil whether the standard operating procedure created for the NHS Golden Jubilee sufficiently managed COVID-19 risk to allow safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery. Methods. This was a prospective study of all elective orthopaedic patients within an elective unit running a green pathway at a COVID-19 light site. Rates of preoperative and 30-day postoperative COVID-19 symptoms or infection were examined for a period of 40 weeks. The unit resumed elective orthopaedic services on 29 June 2020 at a reduced capacity for a limited number of day-case procedures with strict patient selection criteria, increasing to full service on 29 August 2020 with no patient selection criteria. Results. A total of 2,373 cases were planned in the 40-week study period. Surgery was cancelled in 59 cases, six (10.2%) of which were due to having a positive preoperative COVID-19 screening test result. Of the remaining 2,314, 996 (43%) were male and 1,318 (57%) were female. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 59.2 to 74.6). The median American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was 2. Hip and knee arthroplasties accounted for the majority of the operations (76%). Six patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively (0.25%) and 39 patients were tested for COVID-19 within 30 days after discharge, with only five patients testing positive (0.22%). Conclusion. Through strict application of a COVID-19 green pathway, elective orthopaedic surgery could be safely delivered to a large number of patients with no selection criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):951–957

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. During the COVID-19 pandemic, drilling has been classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of bone drilling on splatter generation. Our aim was to quantify the effect of drilling on splatter generation within the orthopaedic operative setting. Methods. This study was performed using a Stryker System 7 dual rotating drill at full speed. Two fluid mediums (Videne (Solution 1) and Fluorescein (Solution 2)) were used to simulate drill splatter conditions. Drilling occurred at saw bone level (0 cm) and at different heights (20 cm, 50 cm, and 100 cm) above the target to simulate the surgeon ‘working arm length’, with and without using a drill guide. The furthest droplets were marked and the droplet displacement was measured in cm. A surgical microscope was used to detect microscopic droplets. Results. Bone drilling produced 5 cm and 7 cm droplet displacement using Solutions 1 and 2, respectively. Drilling at 100 cm above the target produced the greatest splatter generation with a 95 cm macroscopic droplet displacement using Solution 2. Microscopic droplet generation was noticed at further distances than what can be macroscopically seen using Solution 1 (98 cm). Using the drill guide, there was negligible drill splatter generation. Conclusion. Our study has shown lower than anticipated drill splatter generation. The use of a drill guide acted as a protective measure and significantly reduced drill splatter. We therefore recommend using a drill guide at all times to reduce the risk of viral transmission in the operative setting. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):752–756

Aims

Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach.

Aims

As an alternative to external fixators, intramedullary lengthening nails (ILNs) can be employed for distraction osteogenesis. While previous studies have demonstrated that typical complications of external devices, such as soft-tissue tethering, and pin site infection can be avoided with ILNs, there is a lack of studies that exclusively investigated tibial distraction osteogenesis with motorized ILNs inserted via an antegrade approach.

Aims

Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this.

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

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