BackgroundMajor trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16) in older people is increasing, but concerns persist that major trauma is not always recognised in older patients on triage. This study compared undertriage of older and younger adult major trauma patients in the major trauma centre (MTC) setting to investigate this concern.MethodsA retrospective review of Trauma Audit and Research Network data was conducted for three MTCs in the UK for 3 months in 2014. Age, ISS, injury mechanism and injured areas were examined for all severely injured patients (ISS ≥16) and appropriate major trauma triage rates measured via the surrogate markers of trauma team activation and the presence of a consultant first attender, as per standards for major trauma care set by National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Deaths, Royal College of Surgeons of England and the British Orthopaedic Association. Trends in older (age ≥65) and younger (ages 18–64) adult major trauma presentation, triage and reception were reviewed.ResultsOf 153 severely injured patients, 46 were aged ≥65. Older patients were significantly less likely to receive the attention of a consultant first attender or trauma team. Similar trends were also seen on subgroup analysis by mechanism of injury or number of injured body areas. Older major trauma patients exhibit a higher mortality, despite a lower median ISS (older patient ISS=20 (IQR 16–25), younger patient ISS=25 (IQR 18–29)).ConclusionOlder major trauma patients are at greater risk of undertriage, even in the MTC environment. Existing hospital trauma triage practices should be further investigated to explain and reduce undertriage of elderly trauma patients.

Background Reliable, valid, feasible and objective assessment is desirable in all aspects of medical training to allow monitoring of progress and to ensure high standards. At present, no assessment model for shoulder arthroscopy exists that indisputably meets these criteria. The global rating scale (GRS) has been validated as a measure of technical performance in various surgical procedures. We have developed and aim to validate a GRS for shoulder arthroscopy (GRSSA). Materials and methods Using the GRSSA, 13 shoulder surgeons, rated 10 videos of diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy showing different levels of proficiency. Assessments were performed remotely using an online system developed for the study; assessors were blinded to the experience of the surgeon who was performing the arthroscopy. Construct validity was assessed via Cronbach's α and inter‐rater reliability was assessed via two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results The results suggest good construct validity (high internal consistency of GRSSA categories: Cronbach's α = 0.89 to 0.96). Two‐way ANOVA demonstrated a good discriminatory ability of the GRSSA but variability between raters (p = 0.0002 to 0.01), suggesting a current lack of inter‐rater reliability. Discussion The GRSSA appears to be a useful tool for the assessment of diagnostic arthroscopic skills and, using our online system, the assessor can be remote to the surgeon who is performing the procedure.

Revision of a well-fixed cemented femoral stem is technically challenging. The Exeter Short Revision Stem (SRS) was developed to facilitate cement-in-cement revision mitigating some of these challenges. We present the short to mid-term results of 50 cement-in-cement revisions performed with this implant.A retrospective review of all cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter SRS, at our institution, over a seven-year period between 2007 and 2014 was conducted. Records were assessed for radiological and clinical component loosening at greater than 12 months follow-up and for revision and complications at all time points. An Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for groin and thigh pain at rest and initial mobilisation were obtained. 50 implants in 46 patients were identified. Radiographic and clinical follow-up was available for 42 and 38 implants respectively at greater than 12 months. Mean radiographic follow-up was 5.1 years and clinical 4.9 years. There was no radiographic or clinical evidence of loosening. 3 revisions were performed, one for each of recurrent dislocation, infection and stem breakage. Median OHS was 39 (IQR 12) and mean NRS for groin pain at rest and initial mobilisation was 1.7 and 1.7 respectively and NRS for thigh pain at rest and initial mobilisation was 1.3 and 1.6 respectively with mean follow-up of 6.9 years.The Exeter SRS provides a viable option for cement-in-cement stem revision, with low revision, complication and loosening rates and good patient reported outcomes at short to mid-term follow up.

Over the past 50 years the capability of technology to improve surgical care has been realised and while surgical trainees and trainers strive to deliver care and train; the technological ‘solutions’ market continues to expand. However, there remains no coordinated process to assess these technologies. The FOS:TEST Report aimed to (1) define the current, unmet needs in surgical training, (2) assess the current evidence-base of technologies that may be beneficial to training and map these onto both the patient and trainee pathway and (3) make recommendations on the development, assessment, and adoption of novel surgical technologies. The FOS:TEST Commission was formed by the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT), The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS England) Robotics and Digital Surgery Group and representatives from all trainee specialty associations. Two national datasets provided by Health Education England were used to identify unmet surgical training needs through qualitative analysis against pre-defined coding frameworks. These unmet needs were prioritised at two virtual consensus hackathons and mapped to the patient and trainee pathway and the capabilities in practice (CiPs) framework. The commission received more than 120 evidence submissions from surgeons in training, consultant surgeons and training leaders. Following peer review, 32 were selected that covered a range of innovations. Contributors also highlighted several important key considerations, including the changing pedagogy of surgical training, the ethics and challenges of big data and machine learning, sustainability, and health economics. This summates to 7 Key Recommendations and 51 concluding statements. The FOS:TEST Commission was borne out of what is a pivotal point in the digital transformation of surgical training. Academic expertise and collaboration will be required to evaluate efficacy of any novel training solution. However, this must be coupled with pragmatic assessments of feasibility and cost to ensure that any intervention is scalable for national implementation. Currently, there is no replacement for hands-on operating. However, for future UK and ROI surgeons to stay relevant in a global market, our training methods must adapt. The Future of Surgery: Technology Enhanced Surgical Training Report provides a blueprint for how this can be achieved.