RSTN COVID-19 Hand Recovery: Two years on, where are we now?

Hand surgery services were required to rapidly adapt to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Two years following the initial wave, hand surgery units continue to adapt and recover from the pandemic. The aim of the RSTN COVID-19 Hand Recovery survey was to evaluate what adaptions made to hand surgery services during COVID-19 have been maintained in the COVID recovery phase. A survey was distributed to hand surgery units, across the UK and Ireland. The survey was completed by consultant hand surgeons across 39 hospitals. Most practices returned to pre-pandemic standards. The main changes that endured were the increase in consultant-led triaging for referrals and utilisation of video conferencing platforms for teaching and meetings. Changes made during the pandemic, such as increased use of WALANT, out of theatre operating and use of telemedicine were not sustained during the recovery period. The COVID-19 pandemic allowed the opportunity for hand surgery services to adapt their services. Several changes that were implemented have since been proven to be more efficient and equally effective for patients. However, these changes have not been sustained and the barriers preventing permanent implementation should be scrutinised. We call on hand surgery units to evaluate their current practice to ensure that patients are provided a streamlined and sustainable service.

RSTN COVID Hand: Hand trauma in the United Kingdom and Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly impacted the delivery of hand surgery services throughout the UK and Europe; from triage to treatment. Our aim was to assess the impact on management of common hand trauma injuries to inform future service delivery and research. The Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network led a service evaluation during the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020. Data was collected on hand injury management during the COVID-19 pandemic and was compared to the management clinicians would have delivered prior. Across 35 hand surgery units, 2540 patients with hand trauma were included. There was an increase of between 3% and 7% in non-operative management of injuries, apart from flexor tendon injuries where management remained unchanged. Cases triaged by a consultant doubled, with a 22% increase in the see-and-treat model. There was a move to operating in low-resource settings; a 13% increase in the use of minor operating theatres and 10% in clinic rooms. Use of WALANT, absorbable sutures, and remote follow-up also increased by 16%, 24%, and between 11% and 25%, respectively. The reported 30-day complication rate was 3.2%, with a surgical site infection rate of 1.8%. The pandemic led to rapid change in many aspects of hand trauma care. It was the impetus for increased out-of-theatre operating, use of local anaesthetic, and more non-operative management of injuries, without an increase in complication rate. Further research needs to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these changes to ensure that COVID-19 is a catalyst for a modern, evidence-based, and environmentally sustainable delivery of hand trauma services.

Adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of UK and European hand surgery units.

Hand surgery services had to rapidly adapt to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network #RSTNCOVID Hand Surgery survey was to document the changes made in the UK and Europe and consider which might persist. A survey developed by the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network, in association with the British Association of Hand Therapists, was distributed to hand surgery units across the UK and Europe after the first wave of COVID-19. It was completed by one consultant hand surgeon at each of the 44 units that responded. Adult and paediatric trauma were maintained but elective services stopped. Consultations were increasingly virtual, and surgery was more likely to be under local anaesthetic and in a lower resource setting. Many of the changes are viewed as being beneficial. However, it is important to establish that they are clinically and cost effective. These survey results will help prioritise and support future research initiatives.

Percutaneous treatment of calculi in reconstructed bladder.

PURPOSE: To report our results with percutaneous removal of calculi from reconstructed bladders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with reconstructed bladders who underwent endoscopic cystolithotomy were identified from our departmental database, and retrospective review of case notes and imaging was performed. RESULTS: Access was gained via an ultrasound-guided new tract in 9 patients (75%). An old suprapubic tract site was used in two patients, and the Mitrofanoff stoma was the route of access in one patient. The procedure was successful, with stone clearance achieved in all 12 cases. No major complications were observed. At a median follow up of 24 months, stone recurrence was observed in 5 patients (42%), 4 of whom underwent repeat procedures. Follow-up showed no change in continence in the patient with a Mitroffanoff stoma. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous cystolithotomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive option for removal of stones in a reconstructed bladder. We recommend endoscopic removal as the treatment of choice in these patients.

Cause and outcome of atypical chest pain in patients admitted to hospital.

In patients with acute chest pain the prime need, usually, is to diagnose and treat myocardial infarction or ischaemia. When a cardiac origin for the pain has been excluded, patients are commonly discharged without either a diagnosis or a plan for follow-up. We studied a group of such patients to see how far causation was pursued and how their mortality compared with that of patients with a proven cardiac cause for their symptoms. The study population was 250 patients admitted over five weeks with chest pain suspected of being cardiac in origin. Initial assessment included an electrocardiogram and measurement of troponin T. If neither of these indicated a cardiac event, the patient was deemed to have 'atypical' chest pain and the cause, where defined, was recorded. Outcomes at one year were determined by questionnaire and by assessment of medical notes. Of the 250 patients, 142 had cardiac pain (mean age 79 years, 58% male) and 108 atypical chest pain (mean age 60 years, 55% male). Of those with atypical pain, 40 were discharged without a diagnosis; in the remaining 68 the pain was thought to be musculoskeletal (25), cardiac (21), gastrointestinal (12) or respiratory (10) in origin. 41 patients were given a follow-up appointment on discharge. At one year, data were available on 103 (96%) patients. The mortality rate was 2.9% (3 patients) compared with 18.3% in those with an original cardiac event. Half of the patients with atypical pain had undergone further investigations and 14% had been readmitted. The yield of investigative procedures was generally low (20%) but at the end of the year only 27 patients remained undiagnosed. Patients with atypical chest pain form a substantial proportion of emergency admissions. The symptoms often persist or recur. The commonest causation is musculoskeletal, but a sizeable minority remain undiagnosed even after follow-up.