Medically Necessary Orthopaedic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Safe Surgical Practices and a Classification to Guide Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved as a viral pandemic. Countries worldwide have been affected by the recent outbreak caused by the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)-CoV-2 virus. As with prior viral pandemics, health-care workers are at increased risk. Orthopaedic surgical procedures are common in health-care systems, ranging from emergency to elective procedures. Many orthopaedic surgical procedures are life or limb-saving and cannot be postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic because of potential patient harm. Our goal is to analyze how orthopaedic surgeons can perform medically necessary procedures during the pandemic and to help guide decision-making perioperatively. METHODS: We performed a review of the existing literature regarding COVID-19 and prior viral outbreaks to help guide clinical practice in terms of how to safely perform medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic for both asymptomatic patients and high-risk (e.g., COVID-19-positive) patients. We created a classification system based on COVID-19 positivity, patient health status, and COVID-19 prevalence to help guide perioperative decision-making. RESULTS: We advocate that only urgent and emergency surgical procedures be performed. By following recommendations from the American College of Surgeons, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the recent literature, safe orthopaedic surgery and perioperative care can be performed. Screening measures are needed for patients and perioperative teams. Surgeons and perioperative teams at risk for contracting COVID-19 should use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), when risk of viral spread is high. When preparing for medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic, our classification system will help to guide decision-making. A multidisciplinary care plan is needed to ensure patient safety with medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic can be performed safely when medically necessary but should be rare for COVID-19-positive or high-risk patients. Appropriate screening, PPE use, and multidisciplinary care will allow for safe medically necessary orthopaedic surgery to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Pandemic response protocol of a non-frontline specialty in a multispecialty tertiary health care centre-a pilot model in orthopaedics.

BACKGROUND: 3,181,642 cases and 224,301 deaths in 212 regions of the world-this is the status of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) pandemic as of May 1, 2020. This pandemic has managed to overwhelm the health care system of the most advanced countries in the world. As the whole of the medical fraternity stands robed as health care professionals to fight against COVID-19, specialty emergencies like trauma continue to pester the already overburdened health care community. This situation calls for the need for a pandemic response protocol (PREP) in each specialty that helps the doctors to manage specialty emergencies without chaos and at the same time allowing them to play their part in pandemic management. CONCLUSION: PREP as an integrated pragmatic approach is essential in containing pandemics as they need international cooperation at various levels starting from knowledge sharing to monetary support. PREP which is in line with the WHO action plan, will be an essential minimum response of a non-frontline pandemic response specialty like orthopedics to combat and curtail the effects of a pandemic in a multispecialty tertiary health care centre.

Recommendations from the Italian Society of Pediatric Orthopaedics and Traumatology for the management of pediatric orthopaedic patients during the COVID19 pandemic and post-pandemic period in Italy.

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy has dramatically impacted the National Healthcare System, causing the sudden congestion of hospitals, especially in Northern Italy, thus imposing drastic restriction of almost all routine medical care. This exceptional adaptation of the Italian National Healthcare System has also been felt by non-frontline settings such as Pediatric Orthopaedic Units, where the limitation or temporary suspension of most routine care activities met with a need to maintain continuity of care and avoid secondary issues due to the delay or suspension of the routine clinical practice. The Italian Society of Pediatric Orthopaedics and Traumatology formulated general and specific recommendations to face the COVID-19 outbreak, aiming to provide essential care for children needing orthopaedic treatments during the pandemic and early post-peak period, ensure safety of children, caregivers and healthcare providers and limit the spread of contagion.

The success of virtual clinics during COVID-19: A closed loop audit of the British orthopaedic association (BOAST) guidelines of outpatient orthopaedic fracture management.

COVID-19 has had profound management implications for orthopaedic management due to balancing patient outcomes with clinical safety and limited resources. The BOAST guidelines on outpatient orthopaedic fracture management took a pragmatic approach. At Great Western Hospital, Swindon, a closed loop audit was performed looking at a selection of these guidelines, to assess if our initial changes were sufficient and what could be improved. METHOD: An audit was designed around fracture immobilisation, type of initial fracture clinic assessment, default virtual follow up clinic and late imaging. Interventions were implemented and re-audited. RESULTS: Initially 223 patients were identified over 4 weeks. Of these, 100% had removable casts and 99% did not have late imaging. 96% of patients were initially assessed virtually or had initial orthopaedic approval to be seen in face to face clinic. 97% had virtual follow up or had documented reasons why not. The 26 patients who were initially seen face to face were put through a simulated virtual fracture clinic. 22 appointments and 13 Xray attendances could have been avoided. We implemented a change of requiring all patients to be assessed at consultant level before having a face to face appointment. The re-audit showed over 99% achievement in all areas. CONCLUSION: Virtual fracture clinics, both triaging new patients and follow-up clinics have dramatically changed our outpatient management, helping the most appropriate patients to be seen face to face. Despite their limitations, they have been well tolerated by patients and improved patient safety and treatment.

The new 'normal': Rapid adoption of telemedicine in orthopaedics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine provides a safe and effective means for the delivery of care by physicians amongst many subspecialties. Historically, orthopaedic practices in the United States have not widely utilized telemedicine for the delivery of orthopaedic care. As technology improves the adoption and utilization of telemedicine will likely grow, especially in light of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Our study aims to assess patient and surgeon satisfaction and efficacy of telemedicine during a rapid adoption due to the global pandemic. METHODS: All patients who completed a telemedicine encounter (telephone or video) with an orthopaedic surgeon were contacted. Patients were individually contacted after their visit, and a standardized validated post-visit satisfaction survey was completed. Orthopaedic surgeons completed a standardized post-encounter survey after each visit. Pre-COVID-19 patient satisfaction data was used for comparison. RESULTS: Orthopaedic surgeons completed 612 telehealth encounters either via phone or video consultation between April 6, 2020 and May 22, 2020. 95% of patients rated both surgeon sensitivity to their needs and response to their concerns as 'good' or 'very good.' 93% of patients reported they would participate in a telemedicine encounter again. Surgeons reported high satisfaction with telemedicine encounters (80%, 86% phone and video respectively), and that 78.4% of the time a telemedicine encounter was successful in replacing an in-person visit. CONCLUSION: Patients and orthopaedic surgeons documented high levels of satisfaction with telehealth encounters during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Telemedicine does not appear to be a replacement for all in-person clinic encounters, however, when used in the appropriate context demonstrated favourable results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4 Study.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic and trauma surgery training in Europe.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on orthopaedic and trauma surgery training in Europe by conducting an online survey among orthopaedic trainees. METHODS: The survey was conducted among members of the Federation of Orthopaedic and Trauma Trainees in Europe (FORTE). It consisted of 24 questions (single-answer, multiple-answer, Likert scales). Orthopaedic trainees' demographic data (six questions), clinical role changes (four questions), institutional changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic (nine questions), and personal considerations (five questions) were examined. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-seven trainees from 23 European countries completed the survey. Most trainees retained their customary clinical role (59.8%), but a significant number was redeployed to COVID-19 units (20.9%). A drastic workload decrease during the pandemic was reported at most institutions. Only essential activities were performed at 57.1% of institutions and drastic disruptions were reported at 36.0%. Of the respondents, 52.1% stated that faculty-led education was restricted and 46.3% pursued self-guided learning, while 58.6% stated that surgical training was significantly impaired. Concerns about the achievement of annual training goals were expressed by 58.2% of the participants, while 25.0% anticipated the need for an additional year of training. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly affected orthopaedic and trauma training in Europe. Most trainees felt the decrease in clinical, surgical, and educational activities would have a detrimental effect on their training. Many of them consulted remote learning options to compensate training impairment, stating that after the COVID-19 pandemic electronic educational approaches may become more relevant in future.

Are Virtual Fracture Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic a Potential Alternative for Delivering Fracture Care? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Virtual fracture clinics are an alternative to the traditional model of fracture care. Since their introduction in 2011, they have become increasingly used in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health crisis has driven institutions to examine such innovative solutions to manage patient care. The current controversies include quantifying safety outcomes, such as potential delayed or missed injuries, inadequate treatment, and medicolegal claims. Questions also exist regarding the potential for cost reductions and efficiencies that may be achieved. Physical distancing has limited the number of face-to-face consultations, so this review was conducted to determine if virtual fracture clinics can provide an acceptable alternative in these challenging times. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of this systematic review was to describe (1) adverse outcomes, (2) cost reductions, and (3) efficiencies associated with the virtual fracture clinic model. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to March 2020. The keywords "virtual" or "telemedicine" or "telehealth" or "remote" or "electronic" AND "fracture" or "trauma" or "triage" AND "clinic" or "consultation" were entered, using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria included adults and children treated for injuries by a virtual clinic model at the initial review. Eligible injuries included injuries deemed to not need surgical intervention, and those able to be treated remotely using defined protocols. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients reviewed by telemedicine using video links or in person at the initial review. Initially, 1065 articles were identified, with 665 excluded as they did not relate to virtual fracture clinics. In all, 400 articles were screened for eligibility, and 27 full-text reviews were conducted on 18 studies (30,512 virtual fracture clinic encounters). Three subdomains focusing on adverse outcomes, cost reductions, and efficiencies were recorded. The term adverse outcomes was used to describe any complications, further surgeries, re-referrals back to the clinic, or deviations from the protocols. Efficiency described the number of patients reviewed and discharged using the model, savings in clinic slots, reduced waiting times, or a reduction in consumption of resources such as radiographs. All studies were observational and the quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa tool, which demonstrated a median score of 6 ± 1.8, indicating moderate quality. RESULTS: Six studies reported adverse outcomes in detail, with events ranging from inappropriate splinting, deviations from protocols, and one patient underwent an osteotomy for a malunion. Efficiency varied from direct discharge proportions of 18% in early studies to 100% once the virtual fracture clinic model was more established. Cost reductions compared with estimates derived from conventional fracture clinics varied from USD 53 to USD 297 and USD 39,125 to USD 305876 compared with traditional fracture clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual fracture clinics may provide a means to treat patients remotely, using agreed-upon protocols. They have an important role in the current COVID-19 pandemic, due to the possibility to provide ongoing care in an otherwise challenging setting. More robust studies looking at this model of care will be needed to assess its long-term effects on patients, institutions, and health care systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

[Orthopedics between reason and passion. Guidelines and shadow lines.] / Ortopedia tra ragione e passione. Linee guida e linee d'ombra.

For over 20 years the Evidence-Based Orthopaedics Working Group (GLOBE) has been promoting evidence-based medicine (EBM) in orthopaedics and traumatology. However, despite a constant and wide-ranging editorial production and fruitful collaborations with colleagues and institutions at national and international level, the orthopaedic scientific community finds it difficult to recognize the EBM model as a solid reference: there are few guidelines available, there is little awareness of their usefulness, and the complexity of the methodology of production and adaptation of documents widens the gap between the orthopaedic real world and that of clinical epidemiology. After a quick analysis of the causes of this contrast, the authors reflect on the possible solutions to the problem, and propose to collaborate for a simplification of the guidelines production methodology, using innovative models of literature review, which have proved to be effective to make the best knowledge available quickly during the CoViD-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine in Orthopaedic Surgery: Challenges and Opportunities.

Improvements in technology and a push toward value-based health care have poised the telemedicine industry for growth; however, despite the benefits of virtual care, widespread implementation had not occurred until the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Powerful barriers have hindered the widespread adoption of telemedicine, including lack of awareness, implementation costs, inefficiencies introduced, difficulty performing physical examinations, overall lack of perceived benefit of virtual care, negative financial implications, concern for medicolegal liability, and regulatory restrictions. Some of these challenges have been addressed with temporary state and federal mandates in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, continued investment in systems and technology as well as refinement of regulations around telemedicine are needed to sustain widespread adoption by patients and providers.

What every orthopaedic surgeon should know about COVID-19: A review of the current literature.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected the medical community and stopped the world in its tracks. This review aims to provide the basic information necessary for us, orthopaedic surgeons to prepare ourselves to face this pandemic together. Herein, we cover the background of COVID-19, presentation, investigations, transmission, infection control and touch upon emerging treatments. It is of paramount importance that we should stay vigilant for our patients, our families and ourselves. Adequate infection control measures are necessary during day-to-day clinical work.

Management of orthopaedic and traumatology patients during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in northern Italy.

PURPOSE: This article aims to share northern Italy's experience in hospital re-organization and management of clinical pathways for traumatic and orthopaedic patients in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Authors collected regional recommendations to re-organize the healthcare system during the initial weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020. The specific protocols implemented in an orthopaedic hospital, selected as a regional hub for minor trauma, are analyzed and described in this article. RESULTS: Two referral centres were identified as the hubs for minor trauma to reduce the risk of overload in general hospitals. These two centres have specific features: an emergency room, specialized orthopaedic surgeons for joint diseases and trauma surgeons on-call 24/7. Patients with trauma without the need for a multi-disciplinary approach or needing non-deferrable elective orthopaedic surgery were moved to these hospitals. Authors report the internal protocols of one of these centres. All elective surgery was stopped, outpatient clinics limited to emergencies and specific pathways, ward and operating theatre dedicated to COVID-19-positive patients were implemented. An oropharyngeal swab was performed in the emergency room for all patients needing to be admitted, and patients were moved to a specific ward with single rooms to wait for the results. Specific courses were organized to demonstrate the correct use of personal protection equipment (PPE). CONCLUSION: The structure of the orthopaedic hubs, and the internal protocols proposed, could help to improve the quality of assistance for patients with musculoskeletal disorders and reduce the risk of overload in general hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Returning to orthopaedic business as usual after COVID-19: strategies and options.

PURPOSE: The aim of this manuscript is to review the available strategies in the international literature to efficiently and safely return to both normal orthopaedic surgical activities and to normal outpatient clinical activities in the aftermath of a large epidemic or pandemic. This information would be beneficial to adequately reorganize outpatient clinics and hospitals to provide the highest possible level of orthopaedic care to our patients in a safe and efficient manner. METHODS: A literature search was performed for relevant research articles. In addition, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), the EU CDC and other government health agency websites were searched for any relevant information. In particular, interest was paid to strategies and advise on managing the orthopaedic patient flow during outpatient clinics as well as surgical procedures including the necessary safety measures, while still providing a high-quality patient experience. The obtained information is provided as a narrative review. RESULTS: There was not any specific literature concerning the organization of an outpatient clinic and surgical activities and the particular challenges in dealing with a high-volume practice, in the afterwave of a pandemic. CONCLUSION: As the COVID-19 crisis has abruptly halted most of the orthopaedic activities both in the outpatient clinic and the operating room, a progressive start-up scenario needs to be planned. The exact timing largely depends on factors outside of our control. After restrictions will be lifted, clinical and surgical volume will progressively increase. This paper offers key points and possible strategies to provide the highest level of safety to both the orthopaedic patient and the orthopaedic team including administrative staff and nurses, during the start-up phase. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review, Level V.

COVID-19 coronavirus: recommended personal protective equipment for the orthopaedic and trauma surgeon.

PURPOSE: With the COVID-19 crisis, recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) are necessary for protection in orthopaedics and traumatology. The primary purpose of this study is to review and present current evidence and recommendations for personal protective equipment and safety recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons and trauma surgeons. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was performed using the keyword terms "COVID-19", "Coronavirus", "surgeon", "health-care workers", "protection", "masks", "gloves", "gowns", "helmets", and "aerosol" in several combinations. The following databases were assessed: Pubmed, Cochrane Reviews, Google Scholar. Due to the paucity of available data, it was decided to present it in a narrative manner. In addition, participating doctors were asked to provide their guidelines for PPE in their countries (Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, UK) for consideration in the presented practice recommendations. RESULTS: World Health Organization guidance for respiratory aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as intubation in a COVID19 environment was clear and included the use of an FFP3 (filtering face piece level 3) mask and face protection. However, the recommendation for surgical AGPs, such as the use of high-speed power tools in the operating theatre, was not clear until the UK Public Health England (PHE) guidance of 27 March 2020. This guidance included FFP3 masks and face protection, which UK surgeons quickly adopted. The recommended PPE for orthopaedic surgeons, working in a COVID19 environment, should consist of level 4 surgical gowns, face shields or goggles, double gloves, FFP2-3 or N95-99 respirator masks. An alternative to the mask, face shield and goggles is a powered air-purifying respirator, particularly if the surgeons fail the mask fit test or are required to undertake a long procedure. However, there is a high cost and limited availabilty of these devices at present. Currently available surgical helmets and toga systems may not be the solution due to a permeable top for air intake. During the current COVID-19 crisis, it appeared that telemedicine can be considered as an electronic personal protective equipment by reducing the number of physical contacts and risk contamination. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic and trauma surgery using power tools, pulsatile lavage and electrocautery are surgical aerosol-generating procedures and all body fluids contain virus particles. Raising awareness of these issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19 to the surgical team by aerosolization of blood or other body fluids and hence adequate PPE should be available and used during orthopaedic surgery. In addition, efforts have to be made to improve the current evidence in this regard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.