Evaluating the efficacy of a two-site ('COVID-19' and 'COVID-19-free') trauma and orthopaedic service for the management of hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

AIMS: Hip fracture patients are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness, and admission into hospital puts them at further risk. We implemented a two-site orthopaedic trauma service, with 'COVID' and 'COVID-free' hubs, to deliver urgent and infection-controlled trauma care for hip fracture patients, while increasing bed capacity for medical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A vacated private elective surgical centre was repurposed to facilitate a two-site, 'COVID' and 'COVID-free', hip fracture service. Patients were screened for COVID-19 infection and either kept at our 'COVID' site or transferred to our 'COVID-free' site. We collected data for 30 days on patient demographics, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores (NHFS), time to surgery, COVID-19 status, mortality, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: In all, 47 hip fracture patients presented to our service: 12 were admitted to the 'COVID' site and 35 to the 'COVID-free' site. The 'COVID' site cohort were older (mean 86.8 vs 78.5 years, p = 0.0427) and with poorer CFS (p = 0.0147) and NHFS (p = 0.0023) scores. At the 'COVID-free' site, mean time to surgery was less (29.8 vs 52.8 hours, p = 0.0146), and mean LOS seemed shorter (8.7 vs 12.6 days, p = 0.0592). No patients tested positive for COVID-19 infection while at the 'COVID-free' site. We redirected 74% of our admissions from the base 'COVID' site and created 304 inpatient days' capacity for medical COVID patients. CONCLUSION: Acquisition of unused elective orthopaedic capacity from the private sector facilitated a two-site trauma service. Patients were treated expeditiously, while successfully achieving strict infection control. We achieved significant gains in medical bed capacity in response to the COVID-19 demand. The authors propose the repurposing of unused elective operating facilities for a two-site 'COVID' and 'COVID-free' model as a safe and effective way of managing hip fracture patients during the pandemic.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:190-197.

Computer assisted navigation in total knee and hip arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Computer assisted surgery was pioneered in early 1990s. The first computer assisted surgery (CAS) total knee replacement with an imageless system was carried out in 1997. In the past 25 years, CAS has progressed from experimental in vitro studies to established in vivo surgical procedures. METHODS: A comprehensive body of evidence establishing the advantages of computer assisted surgery in knee and hip arthroplasty is available. Established benefits have been demonstrated including its role as an excellent research tool. Its advantages include dynamic pre-operative and per-operative assessment, increased accuracy in correction of deformities, kinematics and mechanical axis, a better alignment of components, better survival rates of prostheses and a better functional outcome. Adoption of computer navigation in the hip arthroplasty is still at an early stage compared to knee arthroplasty, though the results are well documented. Evidence suggests improved accuracy in acetabular orientation, positioning, hip offset and leg length correction. RESULTS: Among the orthopaedic surgeons, navigated knee arthroplasty is gaining popularity though slowly. The uptake rates vary from country to country. The Australian joint registry data shows increased navigated knee arthroplasty from 2.4% in 2003 to 28.6% in 2015 and decreased revision rates with navigated knee arthroplasty in comparison with traditional instrumented knee arthroplasty in patient cohort under the age of 55 years. CONCLUSION: Any new technology has a learning curve and with practice the navigation assisted knee and hip arthroplasty becomes easy. We have actively followed the evidence of CAS in orthopaedics and have successfully adopted it in our routine practice over the last decades. Despite the cautious inertia of orthopaedic surgeons to embrace CAS more readily; we are certain that computer technology has a pivotal role in lower limb arthroplasty. It will evolve to become a standard practice in the future in various forms like navigation or robotics.

Hip surgery and its evidence base: progress over a decade?

BACKGROUND: The burden of traumatic and elective hip surgery is set to grow. With an increasing number of techniques and implants against the background of an aging population, the emphasis on evidence-based treatment has never been greater. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in the levels of evidence in the hip literature over a decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles pertaining to hip surgery from the years 2000 and 2010 in Hip International, Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and The Bone and Joint Journal were analysed. Articles were ranked by a five-point level of evidence scale and by type of study, according to guidelines from the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. RESULTS: 531 articles were analysed from 48 countries. The kappa value for the inter-observer reliability showed excellent agreement between the reviewers for study type (κ = 0.956, P < 0.01) and for levels of evidence (κ = 0.772, P < 0.01). Between 2000 and 2010, the overall percentage of high-level evidence (levels I and II) studies more than doubled (12 to 31 %, P < 0.001). The most frequent study type was therapeutic; the USA and UK were the largest producers of published work in these journals, with contributions from other countries increasing markedly over the decade. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant increase in high levels of evidence in hip surgery over a decade (P < 0.001). We recommend that all orthopaedic journals consider implementing compulsory declaration by authors of the level of evidence to help enhance quality of evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2: economic and decision analysis.