No abstract

Aims The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to “frontline” specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education. Methods A 42-point questionnaire was designed, validated, and disseminated via e-mail and an instant-messaging platform. Results A total of 101 orthopaedic trainees, representing the four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), completed the questionnaire. Overall, 23.1% (23/101) of trainees were redeployed to non-surgical roles. Of these, 73% (17/23) were redeployed to intensive treatment units (ITUs), 13% (3/23) to A/E, and 13%(3/23%) to general medicine. Of the trainees redeployed to ITU 100%, (17/17) received formal induction. Non-deployed or returning trainees had a significant reduction in sessions. In total, 42.9% (42/101) % of trainees were not timetabled into fracture clinic, 53% (53/101) of trainees had one allocated theatre list per week, and 63.8%(64/101) of trainees did not feel they obtained enough experience in the attached subspecialty and preferred repeating this. Overall, 93% (93/101) of respondents attended at least one weekly online webinar, with 79% (79/101) of trainees rating these as useful or very useful, while 95% (95/101) trainees attended online deanery teaching which was rated as more useful than online webinars (p = 0.005) Conclusion Orthopaedic specialist trainees occupied an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic training. It is imperative this is properly understood to ensure orthopaedic specialist trainees achieve competencies set out in the training curriculum. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:676–682.

Introduction The significance of ring-fencing orthopaedic beds and protected elective sites has recently been highlighted by the British Orthopaedic Association and the Royal College of Surgeons. During the pandemic, many such elective setups were established. This study aimed to compare the functioning and efficiency of an orthopaedic protected elective surgical unit (PESU) instituted during the pandemic with the pre-pandemic elective service at our hospital. Methods We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures in PESU during the pandemic and a similar cohort of patients operated on via the routine elective service immediately prior to the pandemic. To minimise the effect of confounding factors, a secondary analysis was undertaken comparing total hip replacements by a single surgeon via PESU and pre-pandemic ward (PPW) over 5 months. Results A total of 192 cases were listed on PESU during the studied period whereas this number was 339 for PPW. However, more than half of those listed for a surgery on PPW were cancelled and only 162 cases were performed. PESU had a significantly better conversion rate with only 12.5% being cancelled. Forty-nine percent (87 out of 177) of the cases cancelled on PPW were due to a ‘bed unavailability’. A further 17% (30/177) and 16% (28/177) were cancelled due to ‘emergency case prioritisation’ and ‘patient deemed unfit’, respectively. In contrast, only 3 out of the 24 patients cancelled on PESU were due to bed unavailability. Single-surgeon total hip replacement showed similar demographic features for the 25 patients on PESU and 37 patients on PPW. The patients on PESU also demonstrated a decrease in length of hospital stay with an average of 3 days.

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is one of the emergency conditions that can lead to devastating permanent functional disabilities, if misdiagnosed. Multiple studies have questioned the reliability of clinical assessment in diagnosing CES, whether some of the features should be considered to be potential red flags. Bladder dysfunction can reflect CE compromise. The post-void residual (PVR) volume bladder scan is useful in CES diagnosis, but to date there has been no single systematic review supporting its use. Furthermore, there is no clear cut-off point to consider PVR statistically significant. The aim of the study is to perform a systematic review of the current evidence behind the use of the PVR bladder scan as a diagnostic tool for CES diagnosis. This was a comprehensive search using Medline, PubMed and Embase. All articles included post-void bladder scans with the mentioned clear cut-off volume as a diagnostic parameter. A total of five study articles from 1955 fit with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The total number of patients who had a bladder scan was 531. CES was confirmed in 85 cases. Bladder scan diagnosed 70 cases and excluded 327. The best results for both sensitivity and specificity in correlation with the sample of the study were for PVR more than 200 ml. Measuring the post-void urine volume using a bladder scan is an essential tool in the diagnosis of CES. There is a significant correlation between the PVR volume more than 200 ml and higher sensitivity and specificity.