RESUMO
Background and Objective: A significant increase has been observed globally in multi-centre trainee-led trauma & orthopaedic (T&O) research collaborative projects with more emphasis have been on tackling important research questions since the start of the COCID-19 pandemic. The objective of our analysis was to determine the number of trainee-led research collaborative projects in T&O in the United Kingdom that were started during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted to determine how many trainee-led national collaborative projects in T&O were conducted since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown (March 2020 to June 2021) and the number of projects identified were compared to the previous year (2019). Any regional collaborative projects, projects that were started before the onset of COVID and projects of other surgical specialities were not included in the study. Results: There were no projects identified in 2019 while in the Covid pandemic lockdown we identified 10 trainee-led collaborative trauma & orthopaedic projects with six of them being published with level of evidence from three to four. Conclusion: Covid was unprecedented and has placed considerable trials across healthcare. Our study highlights an increase in multi-centre trainee-led collaborative projects within the UK and it underlines the feasibility of such projects especially with the advent of social media and Redcap® which facilitate recruitment of new studies and data.
RESUMO
AIMS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, drilling has been classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of bone drilling on splatter generation. Our aim was to quantify the effect of drilling on splatter generation within the orthopaedic operative setting. METHODS: This study was performed using a Stryker System 7 dual rotating drill at full speed. Two fluid mediums (Videne (Solution 1) and Fluorescein (Solution 2)) were used to simulate drill splatter conditions. Drilling occurred at saw bone level (0 cm) and at different heights (20 cm, 50 cm, and 100 cm) above the target to simulate the surgeon 'working arm length', with and without using a drill guide. The furthest droplets were marked and the droplet displacement was measured in cm. A surgical microscope was used to detect microscopic droplets. RESULTS: Bone drilling produced 5 cm and 7 cm droplet displacement using Solutions 1 and 2, respectively. Drilling at 100 cm above the target produced the greatest splatter generation with a 95 cm macroscopic droplet displacement using Solution 2. Microscopic droplet generation was noticed at further distances than what can be macroscopically seen using Solution 1 (98 cm). Using the drill guide, there was negligible drill splatter generation. CONCLUSION: Our study has shown lower than anticipated drill splatter generation. The use of a drill guide acted as a protective measure and significantly reduced drill splatter. We therefore recommend using a drill guide at all times to reduce the risk of viral transmission in the operative setting. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):752-756.
RESUMO
AIMS: To assess the proportion of patients with distal radius fractures (DRFs) who were managed nonoperatively during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the British Orthopaedic Association BOAST COVID-19 guidelines, who would have otherwise been considered for an operative intervention. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the radiographs and clinical notes of all patients with DRFs managed nonoperatively, following the publication of the BOAST COVID-19 guidelines on the management of urgent trauma between 26 March and 18 May 2020. Radiological parameters including radial height, radial inclination, intra-articular step-off, and volar tilt from post-reduction or post-application of cast radiographs were measured. The assumption was that if one radiological parameter exceeds the acceptable criteria, the patient would have been considered for an operative intervention in pre-COVID times. RESULTS: Overall, 92 patients formed the cohort of this study with a mean age of 66 years (21 to 96); 84% (n = 77) were female and 16% (n = 15) were male. In total, 54% (n = 50) of patients met at least one radiological indication for operative intervention with a mean age of 68 years (21 to 96). Of these, 42% (n = 21) were aged < 65 years and 58% (29) were aged ≥ 65 years. CONCLUSION: More than half of all DRFs managed nonoperatively during the COVID-19 pandemic had at least one radiological indication to be considered for operative management pre-COVID. We anticipate a proportion of these cases will require corrective surgery in the future, which increases the load on corrective upper limb elective services. This should be accounted for when planning an exit strategy and the restart of elective surgery services.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:612-616.
RESUMO
AIM: The number of knee revisions worldwide has been steadily increasing. While being complex and expensive operations, a high percentage of knee revisions fail early. This study was conducted to evaluate the causes of failure of revision knee replacements. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated 95 patients following knee revision surgery and who underwent further knee revision operations. Indications for index revision as well as the reason for re-revision were recorded. Follow-up was from 30 to 97â¯months (mean 62â¯months). RESULTS: The main cause of failure of revision knee replacements was infection (31 of 95, 32.6%) followed by aseptic loosening (30.5%). Indications for re-revision were instability in 12.6%, persistent stiffness in 10.5%, ongoing pain in 7.3%, extensor mechanism problems in 5.2%, and suspected metal allergy in one. CONCLUSION: Infection and loosening continue to be the main reasons for failure of knee revisions. Improving outcomes for infection management and improved fixation methods may help reduce failed knee revisions.
