Aims The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the severity of anaemia on postoperative complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. All patients who underwent primary TKA or THA between January 2012 and December 2017 were identified and stratified based upon hematocrit level. In this analysis, we defined anaemia as packed cell volume (Hct) < 36% for women and < 39% for men, and further stratified anaemia as mild anaemia (Hct 33% to 36% for women, Hct 33% to 39% for men), and moderate to severe (Hct < 33% for both men and women). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the incidence of multiple adverse events within 30 days of arthroplasty. Results Following adjustment, patients in the THA cohort with moderate to severe anaemia had an increased odds of 6.194 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.679 to 6.756; p < 0.001) for developing any postoperative complication. Following adjustment, patients in the TKA cohort with moderate to severe anaemia had an increased odds of 5.186 (95% CI 4.811 to 5.590; p < 0.001) for developing any postoperative complication. Among both cohorts, as severity increased, there was an increased risk of postoperative complications. Conclusion Preoperative anaemia is a risk factor for complications following primary arthroplasty. There is a significant relationship between the severity of anaemia and the odds of postoperative complications. Patients who had moderate to severe anaemia were at increased risk of developing postoperative complications relative to patients with mild anaemia. When considering elective primary THA or TKA in a moderately or severely anaemic patient, surgeons should strongly consider correcting anaemia prior to surgery if possible. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):485–494.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis: To understand the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the volume, quality, and impact of otolaryngology publications.Study Design: Retrospective analysis. Methods: Fifteen of the top peer-reviewed otolaryngology journals were queried on PubMed for COVID and non-COVIDrelated articles from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 (pandemic period) and pre-COVID articles from the year prior. Information on total number of submissions and rate of acceptance were collected from seven top-ranked journals.Results: Our PubMed query returned 759 COVID articles, 4,885 non-COVID articles, and 4,200 pre-COVID articles, corresponding to a 34% increase in otolaryngology publications during the pandemic period. Meta-analysis/reviews and miscellaneous publication types made up a larger portion of COVID publications than that of non-COVID and pre-COVID publications. Compared to pre-COVID articles, citations per article 120 days after publication and Altmetric Attention Score were higher in both COVID articles (citations/article: 2.75 AE 0.45, P < .001; Altmetric Attention Score: 2.05 AE 0.60, P = .001) and non-COVID articles (citations/article: 0.03 AE 0.01, P = .002; Altmetric Attention Score: 0.67 AE 0.28, P = .016). COVID manuscripts were associated with a 1.65 times higher acceptance rate compared to non-COVID articles (P < .001).Conclusions: COVID-19 was associated with an increase in volume, citations, and attention for both COVID and non-COVID articles compared to pre-COVID articles. However, COVID articles were associated with lower evidence levels than non-COVID and pre-COVID articles.

No abstract