Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Cancellous Bone of Patients with COVID-19 Disease Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: Laboratory Findings and Clinical Applications.

An emerging issue for orthopedic surgeons is how to manage patients with active or previous COVID-19 disease, avoiding any major risks for the surgeons and the O.R. personnel. This monocentric prospective observational study aims to assess the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RT-PCR RNA in cancellous bone samples in patients with active or previous COVID-19 disease. We collected data about 30 consecutive patients from our institution from January 2021 to March 2021 with active or previous COVID-19 disease. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the samples was determined using two different PCR-based assays. Eighteen of the thirty patients included in the study had a positive nasopharyngeal swab at the time of surgery. Twelve patients had a negative nasopharyngeal swab with a mean days since negativization of 138 ± 104 days, ranging from 23 to 331 days. Mean days of positivity to the nasal swab were 17 ± 17. Twenty-nine out of thirty (96.7%) samples were negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In one sample, low SARS-CoV-2 load (Cycle threshold (Ct) 36.6.) was detected but not confirmed using an additional confirmatory assay. The conducted study demonstrates the absence of the viral genome within the analyzed cancellous bone. We think that the use of personal protection equipment (PPE) to only protect from aerosol produced during surgery, both in active and recovered patients, is not strictly necessary. We think that the use of PPE should not be employed by surgeons and the O.R. personnel to protect themselves from aerosols produced from the respiratory tract. Moreover, we think that our results could represent a valid basis for further studies related to the possibility of bone donation in patients that suffered and recovered from COVID-19.

Patients with Musculoskeletal Disorders Presenting to the Emergency Department: The COVID-19 Lesson.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs) are the most common class of complaints among patients presenting for care in the Emergency Department (ED). There is a non-urgent patient population with musculoskeletal complaints attending ED services that creates a burgeoning waiting list and contributes to overcrowding in Emergency Departments (EDs), which is a major concern worldwide. The recent (Coronavirus disease-19) COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented challenge that is revealing the structural and situational strengths and weaknesses of healthcare systems. METHODS: This study retrospectively and prospectively assessed patients presenting to the Emergency Department before and after the COVID-19 outbreak (from 21 February 2019 to 3 May 2019 and from 21 February 2020 to 3 May 2020) with non-traumatic or low-severity musculoskeletal conditions to test the hypothesis that these patients should have access to care outside the ED and that the COVID-19 outbreak has changed patients' care and health perception. RESULTS: A total of 613 patients were identified, and 542 of them (87.56%) participated in a personalized survey. From this number, 81.73% of the total accesses took place in 2019, and only 18.27% of the accesses took place during the first outbreak and lockdown. More than 90% of patients admitted to the ED accessed care during the day shift in both periods. A total of 87.30% of patients presenting to the ED with a MSKD followed their general practitioner's (GP) advice/referral in 2019, and 73.87% did so in 2020. The differences in the means of transport to the ED was statistically significant (p-value 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The outbreak and lockdown period confirmed that there is an inappropriate use of the ED related to patients with MSKD. However, the ED appears to be the only available solution for these patients. New services and pathways are therefore needed to enhance MSKD management and reduce ED crowding. Additional observational studies shall be developed to confirm and compare our findings with those of various EDs. The main limit of the inferential part of the study is probably due to the small sample of patients in 2020.