Clinical Activities, Contaminations of Surgeons and Cooperation with Health Authorities in 14 Orthopedic Departments in North Italy during the Most Acute Phase of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Background: From 10 March up until 3 May 2020 in Northern Italy, the SARS-CoV-2 spread was not contained; disaster triage was adopted. The aim of the present study is to assess the impact of the COVID-19-pandemic on the Orthopedic and Trauma departments, focusing on: hospital reorganization (flexibility, workload, prevalence of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2, standards of care); effects on staff; subjective orthopedic perception of the pandemic. Material and Methods: Data regarding 1390 patients and 323 surgeons were retrieved from a retrospective multicentric database, involving 14 major hospitals. The subjective directors' viewpoints regarding the economic consequences, communication with the government, hospital administration and other departments were collected. Results: Surgical procedures dropped by 73%, compared to 2019, elective surgery was interrupted. Forty percent of patients were screened for SARS-CoV-2: 7% with positive results. Seven percent of the patients received medical therapy for COVID-19, and only 48% of these treated patients had positive swab tests. Eleven percent of surgeons developed COVID-19 and 6% were contaminated. Fourteen percent of the staff were redirected daily to COVID units. Communication with the Government was perceived as adequate, whilst communication with medical Authorities was considered barely sufficient. Conclusions: Activity reduction was mandatory; the screening of carriers did not seem to be reliable and urgent activities were performed with a shortage of workers and a slower workflow. A trauma network and dedicated in-hospital paths for COVID-19-patients were created. This experience provided evidence for coordinated responses in order to avoid the propagation of errors.

Do standards of care and early outcomes of periprosthetic fractures change during the COVID-19 pandemic? A multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) are a growing matter for orthopaedic surgeons, and patients with PPFs may represent a frail target in the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether hospital reorganisations during the most severe phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected standards of care and early outcomes of patients treated for PPFs in Northern Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrieved from a multicentre retrospective orthopaedics and traumatology database, including 14 hospitals. The following parameters were studied: demographics, results of nasopharyngeal swabs, prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), comorbidities, general health status (EQ-5D-5L Score), frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS), pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), anaesthesiologic risk (American Society of Anaesthesiology Score, ASA Score), classification (unified classification system, UCS), type of operation and anaesthesia, in-hospital and early complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification, CDC), and length of stay (LOS). Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics. Out of 1390 patients treated for any reason, 38 PPFs were included. RESULTS: Median age was 81 years (range 70-96 years). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) were swabbed on admission, and two of them (5.3%) tested positive; in three patients (7.9%), the diagnosis of COVID-19 was established on a clinical and radiological basis. Two more patients tested positive post-operatively, and one of them died due to COVID-19. Thirty-three patients (86.8%) presented a proximal femoral PPF. Median ASA Score was 3 (range, 1-4), median VAS score on admission was 3 (range, 0-6), median CFS was 4 (range, 1-8), median EQ-5D-5L Score was 3 in each one of the categories (range, 1-5). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) developed post-operative complications, and median CDC grade was 3 (range, 1-5). The median LOS was 12.8 days (range 2-36 days), and 21 patients (55.3%) were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PPFs did not seem to change during the lockdown. Patients were mainly elderly with comorbidities, and complications were frequently recorded post-operatively. Despite the difficult period for the healthcare system, hospitals were able to provide effective conventional surgical treatments for PPFs, which were not negatively influenced by the reorganisation. Continued efforts are required to optimise the treatment of these frail patients in the period of the pandemic, minimising the risk of contamination, and to limit the incidence of PPFs in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Early mortality in hip fracture patients admitted during first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Italy: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of hip fractures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unique challenges for the management of COVID-19-infected patients and the maintenance of standards of care. The primary endpoint of this study is to compare the mortality rate at 1 month after surgery in symptomatic COVID-positive patients with that of asymptomatic patients. A secondary endpoint of the study is to evaluate, in the two groups of patients, mortality at 1 month on the basis of type of fracture and type of surgical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective multicentre study, we reviewed the medical records of patients hospitalised for proximal femur fracture at 14 hospitals in Northern Italy. Two groups were formed: COVID-19-positive patients (C+ group) presented symptoms, had a positive swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and received treatment for COVID-19; COVID-19-negative patients (C- group) were asymptomatic and tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. The two groups were compared for differences in time to surgery, survival rate and complications rate. The follow-up period was 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 1390 patients admitted for acute care for any reason, 477 had a proximal femur fracture; 53 were C+ but only 12/53 were diagnosed as such at admission. The mean age was > 80 years, and the mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was 3 in both groups. There was no substantial difference in time to surgery (on average, 2.3 days for the C+ group and 2.8 for the C- group). As expected, a higher mortality rate was recorded for the C+ group but not associated with the type of hip fracture or treatment. No correlation was found between early treatment (< 48 h to surgery) and better outcome in the C+ group. CONCLUSIONS: Hip fracture in COVID-19-positive patients accounted for 11% of the total. On average, the time to surgery was > 48 h, which reflects the difficulty of maintaining normal workflow during a medical emergency such as the present pandemic and notwithstanding the suspension of non-urgent procedures. Hip fracture was associated with a higher 30-day mortality rate in COVID-19-positive patients than in COVID-19-negative patients. This fact should be considered when communicating with patients and/or their family. Our data suggest no substantial difference in hip fracture management between patients with or without COVID-19 infection. In this sample, the COVID-19-positive patients were generally asymptomatic at admission; therefore, routine screening is recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level 4.

Mid-term results of an uncemented femoral stem with modular neck options.

We prospectively assessed the results of 239 primary total hip replacements performed using a conical stem combined with modular necks of different lengths and inclinations (Modulus System, Lima Corporate San Daniele Del Friuli, Udine, Italia) in 222 patients (50 men, 172 women), undergoing surgery between October 2001 and December 2006 and presenting with anatomical deformities of the proximal femur and/or acetabulum, including developmental dysplasia (DDH), ankylosis, and sequelae of osteotomies or fractures. Such conditions can make hip replacement problematic. The mean age at the time of surgery was 57.6 years (22 ÷ 83). No patients were lost to follow-up. 3 femoral components underwent revision. At a mean of 5 years follow-up the Harris Hip Score showed a significant improvement, increasing from 35 preoperatively to a mean of 96.6. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis the survival rate at 5 years was 98.28%. The Modulus stem showed good mid-term results in terms of survival, as well as clinical and radiographic outcome.

Intraoperative epidural anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with levobupivacaine for major orthopedic surgery: a double-blind, randomized comparison of racemic bupivacaine and ropivacaine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset time and duration of epidural anesthesia, and the quality of postoperative analgesia produced by levobupivacaine, racemic bupivacaine, and ropivacaine. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Inpatient anesthesia at a University Hospital. PATIENTS: 45 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients, undergoing elective total hip replacement. INTERVENTIONS: After standard intravenous midazolam premedication and infusion of 500 mL of Ringer's acetate solution, patients were randomly allocated to receive epidural block with 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 15), 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 15), or 0.5% ropivacaine (n = 15). Postoperatively, after pinprick sensation recovered at T(t), a patient-controlled epidural infusion was provided with 0.125% levobupivacaine, 0.125% bupivacaine, or 0.2% ropivacaine, respectively (baseline infusion rate 5 mL/hr; incremental bolus 2 mL, lockout time: 20 min). Intravenous ketoprofen was also available for rescue analgesia if required. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The onset time of sensory block was 31 +/- 16 minutes with levobupivacaine, 25 +/- 19 minutes with bupivacaine, and 30 +/- 24 minutes with ropivacaine (p = 0.98), after a median (range) volume of 15 (10-18) mL in Group Levobupivacaine, 14 (10-18) mL in Group Bupivacaine, and 15 (10-18) mL in Group Ropivacaine (p = 0.85). Six patients in the ropivacaine group (40%) showed an intraoperative Bromage score <2 as compared with only three patients of Group Levobupivacaine (20%) and no patient of Group Bupivacaine (p = 0.02). Recovery of pinprick sensation at T(t) occurred after 214 +/- 61 minutes with levobupivacaine, 213 +/- 53 minutes with bupivacaine, and 233 +/- 34 minutes with ropivacaine (p = 0.26). A similar degree of pain relief was observed in the three groups without differences in local anesthetic consumption and need for rescue analgesia. Motor blockade progressively resolved without differences among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine 0.5% produces an epidural block of similar onset, quality, and duration as the one produced by the same volume of 0.5% bupivacaine, with a motor block deeper than that produced by 0.5% ropivacaine. When prolonging the block for the first 12 hours after surgery with a patient-controlled epidural infusion, 0.125% levobupivacaine provides adequate pain relief after major orthopedic surgery, with similar recovery of motor function as compared with 0.125% bupivacaine and 0.2% ropivacaine.