Rethinking Trauma Hospital Services in one of Spain's Largest University Hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. How can we organize and help? Our experience.

INTRODUCTION: The severe disruptions caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have necessitated a redistribution of resources to meet hospitals' current service needs during this pandemic. The aim is to share our experiences and outcomes during the first month of the Covid-19 pandemic, based on the strategies recommended and strategies we have implemented. METHODS: Our experience comes from our work at a referral hospital within the Spanish National Health System. Changes to clinical practice have largely been guided by the current evidence and four main principles: (1) patient and health-care worker protection, (2) uninterrupted necessary care, (3) conservation of health-care resources, (4) uninterrupted formation for residents. Based on these principles, changes in the service organization, elective clinical visits, emergency visits, surgical procedures, and inpatient and outpatient care were made. RESULTS: Using the guidance of experts, we were able to help the hospital address the demands of the Covid-19 outbreak. We reduced to a third of our orthopaedics and trauma hospital beds, provided coverage for general emergency services, and five ICUs, all continuing to provide care for our patients, in the form of 102 trauma surgeries, 6413 phone interviews and 520 emergency clinic visits. Also in the third week, we were able to restart morning meetings via telematics, and teaching sessions for our residents. On the other hand, eight of the healthcare personnel on our service (10.8%) became infected with Covid-19. CONCLUSIONS: As priorities and resources increasingly shift towards the COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible to maintain the high standard and quality of care necessary for trauma and orthopaedics patients while the pandemic persists. We must be prepared to organize our healthcare workers in such a way that the needs of both inpatients and outpatients are met. It is still possible to operate on those patients who need it. Unfortunately, some healthcare workers will become infected. It is essential that we protect those most susceptible to severer consequences of Covid-19. Also crucial are optimized protective measures.

Impact of Implementing a Protocol on the Perioperative Management in Patients Treated with Antithrombotics Admitted for Hip Fracture Surgery: an Observational Study.

This study aimed to describe the impact of implementing a protocol on the perioperative management of patients admitted for hip fracture treated with antithrombotics. A protocol was designed based on the recommendations from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). After its implementation (May 2012), information on antithrombotic management was collected from admission to 3 months after surgery in retrospective (October 2011-March 2012) and prospective (October 2012-March 2013) cohorts. Patients' thromboembolic risk was classified into high, moderate or low according to the ACCP categories. A total of 113 and 101 cases were included in the retrospective and prospective cohorts, respectively. No differences in age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiology score or thrombotic risk categories were observed between cohorts. Most patients were treated with aspirin or triflusal (55.1% and 48.1% in each cohort, respectively), clopidogrel (24.5% and 26.6%) or acenocoumarol (16.3% and 20.2%). In moderate to high thromboembolic risk patients, a higher rate of bridging therapy with full doses of enoxaparin (18.5% and 50%, p = 0.04 before and 9.1% and 43.7%, p = 0.02 after surgery) and a lower rate of aspirin discontinuation (76% and 55.3%, p = 0.03) were observed in the prospective cohort. Both cohorts had a similar percentage of cases with bleeding (68.1% and 68.3%) and thrombotic events (11.5% and 13%). No differences in the timing between surgery and the discontinuation or resumption of antithrombotics were noted. After the protocol implementation, aspirin was less often stopped and bridging therapy with therapeutic doses of enoxaparin was used more often. However, interruption and resumption times of antithrombotics remained almost unchanged. In order to achieve these goals, more efforts should be made to implement the protocol in clinical practice.

Proximal femoral fractures: Can we improve further surgical treatment pathways?

BACKGROUND: In hip fracture surgery, the exact choice of implant often remains somewhat unclear for the individual surgeon, but the growing literature consensus has enabled publication of evidence-based surgical treatment pathways. The aim of this article was to review author pathways and national guidelines for hip fracture surgery and discuss a method for future pathway/guideline implementation and evaluation. METHODS: By a PubMed search in March 2015 six studies of surgical treatment pathways covering all types of proximal femoral fractures with publication after 1995 were identified. Also we searched the homepages of the national heath authorities and national orthopedic societies in West Europe and found 11 national or regional (in case of no national) guidelines including any type of proximal femoral fracture surgery. RESULTS: Pathway consensus is outspread (internal fixation for un-displaced femoral neck fractures and prosthesis for displaced among the elderly; and sliding hip screw for stabile- and intramedullary nails for unstable- and sub-trochanteric fractures) but they are based on a variety of criteria and definitions - and often leave wide space for the individual surgeons' subjective judgement. Appearing neither exhaustive nor exclusive, most of the pathways seem difficult to evaluate scientifically, which might explain why only very few have been evaluated for compliance, reliability and complications after implementation in an actual clinical setting. We therefore introduce a model for step-wise pathway implementation including proper scientific evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment pathways for proximal femoral fractures are available in literature and nationally with somewhat evidence based treatment consensus, but the scientific evaluation of the pathways them selves needs to be optimised.

Subtrochanteric fractures: treatment with cerclage wire and long intramedullary nail.

Fracture malalignment and nonunion are not infrequent after treating subtrochanteric fractures with intramedullary nails. The use of a cerclage wire with a minimally invasive approach to aid and maintain reduction in certain subtrochanteric fracture patterns can be an effective surgical strategy to improve outcome. It allows the surgeon to obtain and maintain an anatomic reduction with more bone contact, which will aid in fracture consolidation. This has the added advantage of optimizing the greater trochanteric starting point. It minimizes malreductions of the proximal femoral fragment, and, we believe, that its rational use with a minimally invasive technique is a key factor in achieving good results.