Background Mid-head resection total hip resurfacing arthroplasty was promoted as an alternative to traditional total hip resurfacing for patients with poor femoral head bone quality or abnormal femoral head morphology, because those patients are at high risk of failure with traditional total hip resurfacing. It is a large-headed metal-onmetal device that uses a short, bone-conserving stem. Good performance of the implant has been reported at short-term followup, but no information on the implant performance in the mid-or long-term is available. Questions/purposes In this study, we report (1) on the mid-term implant survivorship and hip scores in a single nondesigner surgeon series. Because of the occurrence of femoral neck osteolysis and pseudotumor in a subgroup of patients, we also investigated the following: (2) Were there any preoperative parameters that are associated with osteolysis? (3) Could we differentiate the osteolysis group from the others on the basis of implant component sizes, positions, and radiologic parameters? (4) Could we differentiate the osteolysis group from the others on the basis of metal ion levels? Methods Between 2006 and 2011, one surgeon performed a total of 49 Birmingham Mid-head Resection total hip resurfacing arthroplasties in 47 patients. The general indications for this procedure were young patients who were considered suitable for hip resurfacing arthroplasty but had avascular necrosis, large cysts, or severe deformity of the femoral head. Clinical followup including Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and UCLA hip scores were available preoperatively and at a mean of 6 years (range, 3-8 years) on all patients (100%), radiographic followup on 45 of 47 (96%), MRIs on 18 (38%), and metal ion levels on 37 (79%). Mean age at surgery was 50 years. Spearman's correlation was used to test the association between femoral neck osteolysis and preoperative parameters, implant component sizes and positions, and blood metal ion levels. Results We found 100% survival. Patients' median OHS was 46 of 48 (range, 35-48) and UCLA 8 of 10 (range, 4-10). However, 16% of the hips (seven of 45) demonstrated osteolysis in the femoral neck. Of the preoperative parameters, the osteolysis was associated with low weight (r = À0.337, p = 0.031) and to a lesser degree with female sex (r = 0.275, p = 0.067). Radiologically, the osteolysis was strongly associated with the presence of a

In conjunction with NICE and NOGG recommendations, FRAX(®) was able to identify 80% of our fracture population as intermediate or high risk on the day of fracture. Correct management was evident in a third of cases with a pattern of inferior guideline compliance seen in a London population. There remains a lack of clarity over the duty of care in fragility fracture prevention.

No abstract

Introduction It is widely accepted that physical activity is beneficial to both physical and mental health. This study looked at current activity levels of UK doctors outside the workplace and how this compared with the general population. Methods An online anonymous cross-sectional survey was circulated to UK-based doctors. Four questions regarding self-reported physical activity levels were used to generate a score, which placed respondents into ‘active’ and ‘inactive’ categories, with those in the former group not meeting the current UK guidelines for minimum levels of activity. Results A total of 245 doctors responded to the survey. Just under half (42%) of doctors did not meet the UK guidelines for physical activity; this did not differ significantly from the activity levels of the general population (p>0.05). Those working in anaesthetics and intensive care had the highest levels of active respondents (69%). When the respondents’ activity levels were compared with those of the general population within the same age group, doctors aged 25–34 years were significantly less active (p<0.001). Conclusions A national unified approach to increasing the activity levels of UK doctors should be implemented to improve their physical and mental wellbeing. Making this possible will include addressing barriers such as shift work patterns, education and the resources available.

Purpose This study assesses whether sterile surgical helmet systems (SSHS) provide surgeons with additional protection from aerosol pathogens alongside their traditional role protecting against splash. There has been debate on whether to use such systems in reopening elective orthopaedic surgery during the current COVID-19 pandemic environment. Methods Thirty-five participants were enrolled in a double-blinded randomised controlled study investigating efficacy of the Stryker Flyte Surgical Helmet (Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) as protection against respiratory droplets. Wearing the SSHS in a fit testing hood, subjects were randomised to nebulised saccharin solution or placebo. Twenty were allocated to the saccharin group with 15 to placebo. Positive sweet taste represented a failure of the test. Taste tests were performed with the helmet fan turned on and off. Results SSHS did not prevent saccharin taste (p < 0.0001). Within the saccharin cohort, 40% recorded a positive taste with the fan on and 100% with the fan off. There was a statistically significant difference in mean time-to-taste saccharin (p = 0.049) comparing fan on (123.5 s) vs. off (62.6 s). Conclusions SSHS do not protect against aerosol particulate and therefore are not efficacious in protection against COVID-19. The fan system employed may even increase risk to the surgeon by drawing in particulates as well as delay recognition of intraoperative cues, such as exhaust from diathermy, that point to respirator mask leak.