Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Background: Research has led to substantial improvement in health and quality of life. It is pertinent for doctors to participate in research to keep up with the advances of modern medicine and forms one of the seven pillars of clinical governance defined by the General Medical Council. However, clinicians face multiple barriers to participating in research. The objective of this study was to identify barriers in participation and to recommend solutions for better engagement in orthopaedic research. Methodology: Trauma and Orthopaedic consultants and junior doctors in Wales were asked to complete a web-based survey with 15 questions about barriers to participation and suggestions for increasing involvement in clinical research. Results: A total of 148 completed forms were received which included 60 consultants and 88 junior doctors. The response rate was 86%. The most frequently reported barriers to clinical research were time constraints, excess paperwork, lack of knowledge about research methods, and lack of awareness of ongoing research studies. Most participants were keen to be involved in research in the future. Majority responded that they would more likely take part in research activity if there were formal training sessions and more dedicated research sessions scheduled into their timetable. Need for more incentives and allocation of a research officer were other suggestions. Most orthopaedic staff recognised the relevance of research to their job/training. Conclusion: There are multiple perceived barriers to participating in research at all levels in the orthopaedic community; however, these could be mitigated by implementing simple measures.

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries.

Introduction: Recruitment of patients to participate in randomized control trials (RCT) is a challenging task, especially for trauma trials in which the identification and recruitment are time-limited. Multiple strategies have been tried to improve the participation of doctors and the recruitment of patients. The aim was to study the effect of a trainee principal investigator (TPI) on the efficacy of recruitment for a multicenter hip fracture RCT.Methods: A retrospective study comparing the number of junior doctors participating in the WHiTE 8 COPAL RCT and patients recruited before and after the introduction of formal TPI role at a major trauma center in the UK. Data was collected for nine months "before" (Nov 2018-July 2019) and six months "after" (Sept 2019-Feb 2020) the role of TPI was assigned.Results: From November 2018 to February 2020, a total of 292 patients were eligible for recruitment into this trial, out of which 196 (67.12 %) were successfully recruited. Excluding the research team, there were seven junior doctors actively recruiting in the "before period" in comparison with 10 in the "after period." Significantly more patients were recruited by junior doctors after a TPI was assigned. Overall, more percentage of eligible patients were recruited into the trial after a TPI was assigned, and this was statistically significant. Conclusion:The allocation of a formal TPI significantly improved the recruitment of patients in a national RCT. TPI can work alongside the principal investigator and research team to be a valuable link person coordinating and engaging local trainees to take part in trials.