ABSTRACT
Distal femoral fractures account for 3-6% of all femoral fractures with a similar demographic as patients suffering from proximal femoral fractures. The mortality risk can be high in such injuries, which has prompted NHS England to extend the scope of the Best Practice Tariff to include all fragility fractures of the femur. Poor bone quality, intra-articular extension, and significant comminution can make these fractures difficult to manage with fixation techniques, while early mobilisation is a key outcome in the treatment of this injury. In this study, a comprehensive literature search was performed based on keywords, and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant articles. The following factors were analysed: time to surgery, time to full weight-bearing, the average hospital stay, post-operative mobility status, and complications. A total of 233 abstracts were identified using the pre-determined search criteria, and, subsequently, articles were excluded following author review. A total of 10 relevant articles were included in this review, with five used for review and comparison between distal femoral replacement (DFR) and fixation. This resulted in a sample of 200 patients treated with DFR with over 87% ambulatory at follow-up and a re-operation rate of 13.3% compared to 78% and 13.5%, respectively, in those treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) procedure. Despite a limited pool of evidence, the literature suggests that DFR offers an option that potentially allows immediate weight-bearing and leaves most patients ambulatory at follow-up. Although DFR is more costly than other operative techniques, it avoids complications associated with fixation such as non-union and can reduce the risk of further surgery through direct complications or a need for delayed arthroplasty, which is deemed more complex secondary to fixation. Early mobilisation is a key step in reducing morbidity and mortality among this cohort of patients, and a procedure such as DFR should be more widely considered to help achieve this outcome.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in disruptions of clinical services, which saw more clinics being conducted as telephone and videos. The study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of consultations, that is, telephone, video, and face-to-face (F2F) in a shoulder and elbow clinic. METHODS: A total of 84 clinic letters from a shoulder and elbow clinic at a district general hospital were analysed using the Ashford Clinic Letter Scoring System. Of these, 30 were F2F, 30 were telephone, and 24 were video consultations. The letters were analysed and scored based on four parameters, that is, whether a working diagnosis was formulated, relevant investigations were requested or available, a clear management plan was formulated, and whether the consultation was deemed valuable by both the clinician and patient. RESULTS: The mean score (out of a total possible of eight) for F2F was 7.967, 7.667 for video, and 7.333 for telephone consultations. Amongst new referrals, F2F performed the best, followed by video with telephone consultations scoring the lowest. With follow-up referrals, the performance of telephone and video consultations was similar but more inferior compared to F2F. Videos performed nearly as well as F2F when it came to formulating treatment plans for patients. Conclusion: F2F consultations remain the gold standard in a shoulder and elbow clinic; however, careful stratification of patients into video, telephone, and F2F clinics can help in optimal delivery of care. These findings can be applied to other surgical specialties and medicine in general. Virtual clinics are viable and potentially cost-effective options to the traditional F2F.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 is a significant worldwide challenge to many healthcare systems. In Trauma and Orthopaedics, there has been a significant change in the workload but departments have been compelled to change their practice in order to match the demand, as well as respond to the escalating situation of COVID. Some guidance is available on these changes from bodies such as the National Health Service (NHS), Public Health England and the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA). We have implemented certain changes in our university district general hospital trauma and orthopaedic department with regard to staff roles, outpatient and inpatient care and operative protocols. We aim to present some of these changes and their effects on patient care in an attempt to share these with colleagues who may face similar pressures and make some recommendations to help others prepare for a possible second wave of COVID-19.
