ABSTRACT
The proceedings contain 358 papers. The topics discussed include: role of early prophylactic aspirin on Covid-19 outcome in antenatal patients - an audit of a hospital in India;partial intestinal obstruction complicating pregnancy: diagnostic dilemma and management;a case report of uterine rupture recognized during cesarean section at the site of a previous hysteroscopy-related perforation;menstrual characteristics and its related morbidities among adolescent girls living in North Borneo, Malaysia: a questionnaire-based study;the volume of posterior cervical varicose correlates with intraoperative blood loss in placenta previa;implications of large fibroids in pregnancy: a multidisciplinary approach;unexpected ovarian malignancy in postmenopausal women following laparoscopic surgery for adnexal masses - a review of 5 years;post radiotherapy outcome on cervical cancer stage IIIB patients with and without paraaortic lymph nodes enlargement;and evaluation of the relationship between thrombocytosis and clinico-pathological factors of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.
ABSTRACT
Background: There have been numerous techniques used in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) to divide the mesoappendix, including LigaSure, Harmonic scalpel, clips, endoloop ligatures, Endo GIA staplers, and bipolar coagulation. However, few studies have investigated monopolar diathermy for mesoappendix division. Therefore, this study aimed to assess both its safety and efficacy in LA. Method(s): In this prospective non-randomized study, patients (n = 87) who underwent LA for acute appendicitis were included. The bipolar electrocautery was used for mesoappendix division in the first 33 patients (BC group), while the monopolar electrocautery was used in the next 54 patients (MC group). Result(s): The median operative time was significantly shorter in the MC group (42 min. vs 47 min. in BE group, p = 0.01). One patient converted to open surgery in the MC group due to uncontrollable bleeding. There were no significant differences between both groups regarding postoperative complications and hospital stay (p = 0.91, p = 0.13, respectively). Conclusion(s): Monopolar electrocautery is safe and effective for mesoappendix division in LP in comparison to bipolar electrocautery. However, larger and multicentric studies are required to validate our results.Copyright © 2023 The Authors
ABSTRACT
Objective: To investigate the clinical evaluation effects of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk assessment scale on preoperative and surgical risk of liver transplantation during the COVID-19 outbreak. Method(s): The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 6 liver transplant recipients who were admitted to Southern Theater Command General Hospital of PLA between January 20 and March 27, 2020 were collected. There were 5 males and 1 female, aged from 42.0 to 62.0 years, with a median age of 53.0 years. There were 6 donors including 5 males and 1 female, aged from 24.0 to 60.0 years, with a median age of 41.5 years. All the donor livers were obtained through the China Organ Transplant Response System. Liver transplantation was performed in the fixed negative pressure operating room, and secondary protective measures were adopted for low-risk donors. Classic orthotopic liver transplantation or Piggyback liver transplantation was performed according to the specific situations of the recipients. Medical staffs in the ward were exposed to the secondary protective measures, and the three-grade protective measures were adopted for medical staffs when the liver transplant recipients had fever or suspected infection. Observation indicators: (1) risk assessment of COVID-19 on liver transplant recipients;(2) risk assessment of COVID-19 on medical staffs of liver transplantation;(3) treatment situations of liver transplant recipients;(4) postoperative situations of liver transplant recipients;(5) follow-up of liver transplant recipients;(6) infection of medical staffs of liver transplantation. Follow-up was performed using outpatient examination or telephone interview to detect whether liver transplant recipients had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection up to March 2020. Medical staffs who were involved in organ acquisition, transplantation surgery and ward management were followed up to detect whether they had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean+/-SD, and measurement data with skewed distribution were described as M (range). Count data were expressed as absolute numbers. Result(s): (1) Risk assessment of COVID-19 on liver transplant recipients: all the 6 recipients and their related families were confirmed no contact with suspected COVID-19 patients or travel history in the epidemic area within 14 days. Of the 6 recipients, 1 was diagnosed with fever with body temperature of 38.1 and was tested negative for chest computer tomography (CT) examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19;1 was diagnosed with fever and hypoxemia with body temperature of 38.5 and was tested negative for nucleic acid test for COVID-19, and the results of chest CT examination showed large amount of pleural effusion in both lungs without invasive pneumonia;other 4 recipients had no clinical symptoms of COVID-19 with negative results of chest CT examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19. Five of the 6 recipients had no history of contact with COVID-19 patients and 1 recipient had treatment history at hospital of risk level 1. The preoperative risk level of COVID-19 was low in all the 6 liver transplant recipients. (2) Risk assessment of COVID-19 on medical staffs of liver transplantation: of the 6 recipients, 5 had the waiting hospital of risk level 0 and 1 had the waiting hospital of risk level 1. Six recipients had the transplant hospital of risk level 0. (3) Treatment situations of liver transplant recipients: of the 6 recipients, 2 underwent classic orthotopic liver transplantation and 4 underwent piggyback liver transplantation. The cold ischemia time of liver, time of anhepatic phase, volume of intraoperative blood loss, operation time, treatment time at intensive care unit of the 6 recipients were (5.9+/-2.4)hours, (49+/-14)minutes, 1 500 mL(range, 800-1 800 mL), (8.9+/-2.1)hours, 2 days(range, 1-4 days), respectively. Of the 6 recipients, 2 required adjustment of the immunosuppression progr m, and 4 did not change the immunosuppression program. (4) Postoperative situations of liver transplant recipients: of the 6 recipients, 5 had no postoperative serious infection and 1 had postoperative serious infection. The 5 recipients without postoperative serious infection had the range of the highest temperature as 37.8-38.5 , and returned to normal temperature within postoperative 3 days. All of the 5 recipients who had no postoperative serious infection received chest CT examination with no obvious manifestation of viral pneumonia and were tested negative for nucleic acid test for COVID-19 at 1 week postoperatively, and then were discharged from hospital. One recipient who had postoperative serious infection had gastrointestinal fistula and repeated fever at postoperative 7 days with the highest temperature as 39.2 . This recipient had body temperature returned to normal and good function of the graft after treatment in the isolation ward with active drainage, and was transferred back to local hospital for further rehabilitation treatment. The duration of hospital stay of the 6 recipients were 30 days(range, 15-74 days). (5) Follow-up of liver transplant recipients: all the 6 recipients were followed up for 31.5 days(range, 12.0-64.0 days) with the normal body temperature, and they had negative results of viral pneumonia for chest CT examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19. (6) Infection of medical staffs of liver transplantation: surgeons, nurses, anesthetists, medical staffs at ICU and medical staffs at liver transplantation center who participated in liver transplantation had good health within postoperative 14 days, without suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection. Conclusion(s): The COVID-19 risk assessment scale has good safety for liver transplant recipients during the COVID-19 outbreak. It is suggested that organ transplantation can be carried out in low-risk recipients and cautiously carried out in recipients of uncertain risk, but organ transplantation should not be carried out in high-risk recipients.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To investigate the clinical evaluation effects of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk assessment scale on preoperative and surgical risk of liver transplantation during the COVID-19 outbreak. Method(s): The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 6 liver transplant recipients who were admitted to Southern Theater Command General Hospital of PLA between January 20 and March 27, 2020 were collected. There were 5 males and 1 female, aged from 42.0 to 62.0 years, with a median age of 53.0 years. There were 6 donors including 5 males and 1 female, aged from 24.0 to 60.0 years, with a median age of 41.5 years. All the donor livers were obtained through the China Organ Transplant Response System. Liver transplantation was performed in the fixed negative pressure operating room, and secondary protective measures were adopted for low-risk donors. Classic orthotopic liver transplantation or Piggyback liver transplantation was performed according to the specific situations of the recipients. Medical staffs in the ward were exposed to the secondary protective measures, and the three-grade protective measures were adopted for medical staffs when the liver transplant recipients had fever or suspected infection. Observation indicators: (1) risk assessment of COVID-19 on liver transplant recipients;(2) risk assessment of COVID-19 on medical staffs of liver transplantation;(3) treatment situations of liver transplant recipients;(4) postoperative situations of liver transplant recipients;(5) follow-up of liver transplant recipients;(6) infection of medical staffs of liver transplantation. Follow-up was performed using outpatient examination or telephone interview to detect whether liver transplant recipients had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection up to March 2020. Medical staffs who were involved in organ acquisition, transplantation surgery and ward management were followed up to detect whether they had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean+/-SD, and measurement data with skewed distribution were described as M (range). Count data were expressed as absolute numbers. Result(s): (1) Risk assessment of COVID-19 on liver transplant recipients: all the 6 recipients and their related families were confirmed no contact with suspected COVID-19 patients or travel history in the epidemic area within 14 days. Of the 6 recipients, 1 was diagnosed with fever with body temperature of 38.1 and was tested negative for chest computer tomography (CT) examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19;1 was diagnosed with fever and hypoxemia with body temperature of 38.5 and was tested negative for nucleic acid test for COVID-19, and the results of chest CT examination showed large amount of pleural effusion in both lungs without invasive pneumonia;other 4 recipients had no clinical symptoms of COVID-19 with negative results of chest CT examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19. Five of the 6 recipients had no history of contact with COVID-19 patients and 1 recipient had treatment history at hospital of risk level 1. The preoperative risk level of COVID-19 was low in all the 6 liver transplant recipients. (2) Risk assessment of COVID-19 on medical staffs of liver transplantation: of the 6 recipients, 5 had the waiting hospital of risk level 0 and 1 had the waiting hospital of risk level 1. Six recipients had the transplant hospital of risk level 0. (3) Treatment situations of liver transplant recipients: of the 6 recipients, 2 underwent classic orthotopic liver transplantation and 4 underwent piggyback liver transplantation. The cold ischemia time of liver, time of anhepatic phase, volume of intraoperative blood loss, operation time, treatment time at intensive care unit of the 6 recipients were (5.9+/-2.4)hours, (49+/-14)minutes, 1 500 mL(range, 800-1 800 mL), (8.9+/-2.1)hours, 2 days(range, 1-4 days), respectively. Of the 6 recipients, 2 required adjustment of the immunosuppression progr m, and 4 did not change the immunosuppression program. (4) Postoperative situations of liver transplant recipients: of the 6 recipients, 5 had no postoperative serious infection and 1 had postoperative serious infection. The 5 recipients without postoperative serious infection had the range of the highest temperature as 37.8-38.5 , and returned to normal temperature within postoperative 3 days. All of the 5 recipients who had no postoperative serious infection received chest CT examination with no obvious manifestation of viral pneumonia and were tested negative for nucleic acid test for COVID-19 at 1 week postoperatively, and then were discharged from hospital. One recipient who had postoperative serious infection had gastrointestinal fistula and repeated fever at postoperative 7 days with the highest temperature as 39.2 . This recipient had body temperature returned to normal and good function of the graft after treatment in the isolation ward with active drainage, and was transferred back to local hospital for further rehabilitation treatment. The duration of hospital stay of the 6 recipients were 30 days(range, 15-74 days). (5) Follow-up of liver transplant recipients: all the 6 recipients were followed up for 31.5 days(range, 12.0-64.0 days) with the normal body temperature, and they had negative results of viral pneumonia for chest CT examination and nucleic acid test for COVID-19. (6) Infection of medical staffs of liver transplantation: surgeons, nurses, anesthetists, medical staffs at ICU and medical staffs at liver transplantation center who participated in liver transplantation had good health within postoperative 14 days, without suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection. Conclusion(s): The COVID-19 risk assessment scale has good safety for liver transplant recipients during the COVID-19 outbreak. It is suggested that organ transplantation can be carried out in low-risk recipients and cautiously carried out in recipients of uncertain risk, but organ transplantation should not be carried out in high-risk recipients.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To investigate the emergency surgical strategies for patients with acute abdomen during the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Method(s): The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinical data of 20 patients with acute abdomen who were admitted to the Union Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology between January 18, 2020 and February 10, 2020 were collected. There were 13 males and 7 females, aged from 25 to 82 years, with an average age of 57 years. All the patients with emergency surgeries received pulmonary computed tomography (CT) examination before surgery, and completed nucleic acid detection in throat swab if necessary. Patients excluded from COVID-19 underwent regular anesthesia, suspected and confirmed cases were selected a proper anesthesia based on their medical condition and surgical procedure. Patients excluded from COVID-19 underwent emergency surgeries following the regular procedure, suspected and confirmed cases underwent emergency surgeries following the three-grade protection. Observation indicators: (1) surgical situations;(2) postoperative situations. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as average (range). Count data were described as absolute numbers. Result(s): (1) Surgical situations: of the 20 patients with acute abdomen, 16 patients were excluded from COVID-19, and 4 were not excluded. All the 20 patients underwent emergency abdominal surgeries successfully, of whom 2 received surgeries under epidural anesthesia (including 1 with open appendectomy, 1 with open repair of duodenal bulbar perforation), 18 received surgeries under general anesthesia (including 9 with laparoscopic repair of duodenal bulbar perforation, 3 with open partial enterectomy, 3 with laparoscopic appendectomy, 1 with laparoscopic left hemicolectomy, 1 with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, 1 with cholecystostomy). The operation time of patients was 32-194 minutes, with an average time of 85 minutes. The volume of intraoperative blood loss was 50-400 mL, with an average volume of 68 mL. (2) Postoperative situations: 16 patients excluded from COVID-19 preopratively were treated in the private general ward postoperatively. One of the 16 patients had fever at the postoperative 5th day and was highly suspected of COVID-19 after an emergency follow-up of pulmonary CT showing multiple ground-glass changes in the lungs. The patient was promptly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment, and results of nucleic acid detection in throat swab showed double positive. Medical history described by the patient showed that the patient and family members were residents of Wuhan who were not isolated at home during the epidemic. There was no way to confirm whether they had a history of exposure to patients with COVID-19. Medical staffs involved in this case did not show COVID-19 related symptoms during 14 days of medical observation. The other 15 patients recovered well postoperatively. The 4 patients who were not excluded from COVID-19 preoperatively based on medical history and results of pulmonary CT examination were directly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment postoperatively. They were excluded from COVID-19 for two consecutive negative results of nucleic acid detection in the throat swab and recovered well. Two of the 20 patients with acute abdomen had postoperative complications. One had surgical incision infection and recovered after secondary closure following opening incision, sterilizing and dressing, the other one had intestinal leakage and was improved after conservative treatment by abdominal drainage. There was no death in the 20 patients with acute abdomen. Conclusion(s): Patients with acute abdomen need to be screened through emergency forward. Patients excluded from COVID-19 undergo emergency surgeries following the regular procedure, and patients not excluded from COVID-19 undergo emergency surgeries following the three-grade protection. The temperature, blood routine test and other l boratory examinations are performed to monitor patients after operation, and the pulmonary CT and throat nucleic acid tests should be conducted if necessary. Patients excluded from COVID-19 preopratively are treated in the private general ward postoperatively, and they should be promptly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment after being confirmed. Patients who are not excluded from COVID-19 preoperatively based on medical history should be directly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment postoperatively.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To investigate the emergency surgical strategies for patients with acute abdomen during the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Method(s): The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinical data of 20 patients with acute abdomen who were admitted to the Union Hospital Affiliated to Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology between January 18, 2020 and February 10, 2020 were collected. There were 13 males and 7 females, aged from 25 to 82 years, with an average age of 57 years. All the patients with emergency surgeries received pulmonary computed tomography (CT) examination before surgery, and completed nucleic acid detection in throat swab if necessary. Patients excluded from COVID-19 underwent regular anesthesia, suspected and confirmed cases were selected a proper anesthesia based on their medical condition and surgical procedure. Patients excluded from COVID-19 underwent emergency surgeries following the regular procedure, suspected and confirmed cases underwent emergency surgeries following the three-grade protection. Observation indicators: (1) surgical situations;(2) postoperative situations. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as average (range). Count data were described as absolute numbers. Result(s): (1) Surgical situations: of the 20 patients with acute abdomen, 16 patients were excluded from COVID-19, and 4 were not excluded. All the 20 patients underwent emergency abdominal surgeries successfully, of whom 2 received surgeries under epidural anesthesia (including 1 with open appendectomy, 1 with open repair of duodenal bulbar perforation), 18 received surgeries under general anesthesia (including 9 with laparoscopic repair of duodenal bulbar perforation, 3 with open partial enterectomy, 3 with laparoscopic appendectomy, 1 with laparoscopic left hemicolectomy, 1 with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, 1 with cholecystostomy). The operation time of patients was 32-194 minutes, with an average time of 85 minutes. The volume of intraoperative blood loss was 50-400 mL, with an average volume of 68 mL. (2) Postoperative situations: 16 patients excluded from COVID-19 preopratively were treated in the private general ward postoperatively. One of the 16 patients had fever at the postoperative 5th day and was highly suspected of COVID-19 after an emergency follow-up of pulmonary CT showing multiple ground-glass changes in the lungs. The patient was promptly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment, and results of nucleic acid detection in throat swab showed double positive. Medical history described by the patient showed that the patient and family members were residents of Wuhan who were not isolated at home during the epidemic. There was no way to confirm whether they had a history of exposure to patients with COVID-19. Medical staffs involved in this case did not show COVID-19 related symptoms during 14 days of medical observation. The other 15 patients recovered well postoperatively. The 4 patients who were not excluded from COVID-19 preoperatively based on medical history and results of pulmonary CT examination were directly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment postoperatively. They were excluded from COVID-19 for two consecutive negative results of nucleic acid detection in the throat swab and recovered well. Two of the 20 patients with acute abdomen had postoperative complications. One had surgical incision infection and recovered after secondary closure following opening incision, sterilizing and dressing, the other one had intestinal leakage and was improved after conservative treatment by abdominal drainage. There was no death in the 20 patients with acute abdomen. Conclusion(s): Patients with acute abdomen need to be screened through emergency forward. Patients excluded from COVID-19 undergo emergency surgeries following the regular procedure, and patients not excluded from COVID-19 undergo emergency surgeries following the three-grade protection. The temperature, blood routine test and other l boratory examinations are performed to monitor patients after operation, and the pulmonary CT and throat nucleic acid tests should be conducted if necessary. Patients excluded from COVID-19 preopratively are treated in the private general ward postoperatively, and they should be promptly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment after being confirmed. Patients who are not excluded from COVID-19 preoperatively based on medical history should be directly transferred to the isolation ward for treatment postoperatively.Copyright © 2020 by the Chinese Medical Association.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Incivility is defined as rude behaviour or rude remarks[1]. It comes from the Latin incivilis meaning 'not of a citizen' and includes belittling, sarcastic comments, ignoring, rebuking and embarrassing colleagues as well as non-verbal behaviours such as eye rolling. External stressors combined with a permissive environment allow this behaviour to occur. Stressors are personal and work-related stress, feeling rushed, over-worked, having low morale or suffering exhaustion[2]. Many of these are commonplace within the healthcare system, particularly during the last two years with the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workplace incivility is common, reported up to 97% in the operating room[2] with a resultant impact on staff and presenting a patient safety risk. Katz et al[3] described significant differences in performance of anaesthetic trainees exposed to a polite or rude surgeon during a simulated intra-operative haemorrhage (91.2% vs. 63.6% (P=0.007) performing at expected level). 25% of staff who experienced incivility take this out on service users. 75% of service users who witness it are less enthusiastic about the organisation [4]. Reducing workplace incivility is part of the NHS Long-term Plan[5] and NHS People Plan[6]. Our primary objective was to determine prevalence of perceived disruptive behaviours within the operating room at a single-specialty neurosciences centre. Secondary objectives were to identify the most frequent types of disruptive behaviours and implement changes to reduce incivility. Methodology: This survey is locally registered (ref: 10-202122-SE). An anonymous, electronic survey, using Google Forms, was disseminated to healthcare staff working in the neurosurgical operating rooms over 1-month (July 2021) using email cascades and established staff WhatsApp groups. Reminders were sent at week 2 and 3. The survey was previously validated [2] and consisted of two sections: exposure (14-items in 4 categories: personal;in-group;out-group;undirected and directed at patients) and responses (14-items) to disruptive behaviours. Data collected included staff demographics. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel. Result(s): The survey response rate was 49% (n=92;Table 1). 85% of responders perceived experiencing or witnessing disruptive behaviour, most frequently undirected (85%), and mostly a few times a year (personal 70%;patient-directed 67%;in-group 65%;out-group 68%;undirected 56%). A few respondents personally experienced disruptive behaviours on a monthly (4%), weekly (1%) or daily basis (1%). 'Having work obstructed' was the most frequently perceived personal (62%) or out-group (62%) disruptive behaviour, 'sarcasm' most common in-group (63%) and 'speaking ill of others' (85%) most common undirected behaviour. Response to perceived disruptive behaviours was assertive (68%), rarely malicious or manipulative (<1%). 47% accepted the behaviours as a part of normal operating room culture. Further subgroup analysis was not conducted due to small numbers. In response to our survey, we have taken the following actions: (1) Raising awareness: We have presented the results at multidisciplinary staff forums;including Hospital, Neuroanaesthetic and Neurosurgical Department Safety Forums and Operating Department teaching sessions. (2) Further education and awareness: Posters and infographics are displayed from the Civility Saves Lives movement[7], AAGBI #knockitout[8] and of survey results. (3) Staff encouraged to attend further training: Active Bystander, to develop tools to manage disruptive behaviours. Conclusion(s): Perceived disruptive behaviours may be common within the neurosurgical operating room environment. Our results are in keeping with published literature[2] and highlight an important patient safety risk. Encouraging staff to overcome incivility can improve team performance and reduce errors[3], creating a more supportive working environment, safeguarding patients and improving experience. Staff may be empowered to speak up when they see something that potentially jeopardises patient safety. We plan to resurvey once changes have been fully implemented for a period of 6 months to see whether greater awareness and empowerment of staff has made a difference. (Table Presented).
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Crores of people worldwide have been afflicted with Covid 19 since the pandemic started in 2019. Pleural Empyema in Covid 19 patients is a challenging problem and requires a multidisciplinary approach for adequate management. There are very few published studies in the literature that evaluated this issue. In this study, we aim to report the surgical outcomes of post covid pleural empyema and to analyse factors predicting mortality. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data of cases of post covid empyema operated between May 20 to November 2021. A total of 37 patients were included for analysis. The demographic characteristics along with intra and postoperative variables were recorded including post-operative complications. Mortality was the primary outcome measure. Results: A total of 37 patients aged 22-68 years underwent surgery for Pleural Empyema during the study period. All patients underwent VATS decortication. There were 32 males and 5 females. The mean operative time was 284 minutes with the mean intraoperative blood loss of 522 ml. Average chest tube removal time was 9.5 days with an average hospital stay of 8.2 days. No recurrence was noted in any of the patients. Postoperative mortality 8.1% and morbidity was observed in 13.51% of patients. Conclusion: Post covid pneumothorax can be safely and effectively managed in selected patient with failed conservative management. The timing of the surgical intervention, requirement of ventilatory support and high oxygen requirement (>5 lit) were found to factors that significantly affect the mortality.
ABSTRACT
Aim: A pooled waiting list model is where patients are treated in turn by the first available surgeon and works to use existing resources more efficiently to better match demand. Aim is to compare quantitative data of patients on the pooled list and named-consultant' list and to determine the superiority of either list based on favourable outcomes. Method: This single centre, retrospective study compared outcomes of primary elective hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in patients from pooled and 'named-consultant' waiting lists over a 1-year period. The study period was before the corona virus pandemic. 371 total knee replacements (TKR) and 373 total hip replacements (THR) were included. Baseline characteristics were compared between patients from pooled and named-consultant lists. Results: In the pooled TKR group, a significantly higher proportion of patients were older with higher BMI and ASA grade (p=0.027, p= 0.479, p<0.001 respectively). There was no difference in baseline characteristics in the THR cohort. Waiting time to surgery was less in the pooled TKR group (mean=4.17months) with no significant difference in mortality, revision and infection rates, length of stay, operative blood loss, DVT/PE rate, proportion requiring pain team referral and the number with unsatisfactory range of motion at follow-up. There was no significant difference in any outcomes between two groups in the THR cohort. Conclusions: Pooled lists can therefore be an excellent tool in primary THR/TKR to efficiently utilize all available resources (surgeons and theatre time) without compromising on patient outcomes and prompting use in all UK arthroplasty centres.