Investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on recovery colleges: multi-site qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health problems increased as access to mental health services reduced. Recovery colleges are recovery-focused adult education initiatives delivered by people with professional and lived mental health expertise. Designed to be collaborative and inclusive, they were uniquely positioned to support people experiencing mental health problems during the pandemic. There is limited research exploring the lasting impacts of the pandemic on recovery college operation and delivery to students. AIMS: To ascertain how the COVID-19 pandemic changed recovery college operation in England. METHOD: We coproduced a qualitative interview study of recovery college managers across the UK. Academics and co-researchers with lived mental health experience collaborated on conducting interviews and analysing data, using a collaborative thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one managers participated. Five themes were identified: complex organisational relationships, changed ways of working, navigating the rapid transition to digital delivery, responding to isolation and changes to accessibility. Two key pandemic-related changes to recovery college operation were highlighted: their use as accessible services that relieve pressure on mental health services through hybrid face-to-face and digital course delivery, and the development of digitally delivered courses for individuals with mental health needs. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic either led to or accelerated developments in recovery college operation, leading to a positioning of recovery colleges as a preventative service with wider accessibility to people with mental health problems, people under the care of forensic mental health services and mental healthcare staff. These benefits are strengthened by relationships with partner organisations and autonomy from statutory healthcare infrastructures.

Surgical versus non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture in adults 60 years and older: the L1FE RCT.

Background: Lateral compression type-1 pelvic fractures are a common fragility fracture in older adults. Patients who do not mobilise due to ongoing pain are at greater risk of immobility-related complications. Standard treatment in the United Kingdom is provision of pain relief and early mobilisation, unlike fragility hip fractures, which are usually treated surgically based on evidence that early surgery is associated with better outcomes. Currently there is no evidence on whether patients with lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures would have a better recovery with surgery than non-surgical management. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical fixation with internal fixation device compared to non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures in older adults. Design: Pragmatic, randomised controlled superiority trial, with 12-month internal pilot; target sample size was 600 participants. Participants were randomised between surgical and non-surgical management (1 : 1 allocation ratio). An economic evaluation was planned. Setting: UK Major Trauma Centres. Participants: Patients aged 60 years or older with a lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture, arising from a low-energy fall and unable to mobilise independently to a distance of 3 m and back due to pelvic pain 72 hours after injury. Interventions: Internal fixation device surgical fixation and non-surgical management. Participants, surgeons and outcome assessors were not blinded to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - average patient health-related quality of life, over 6 months, assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score. Secondary outcomes (over the 6 months following injury) - self-rated health, physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, displacement of pelvis, mortality, complications and adverse events, and resource use data for the economic evaluation. Results: The trial closed early, at the end of the internal pilot, due to low recruitment. The internal pilot was undertaken in two separate phases because of a pause in recruitment due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The planned statistical and health economic analyses were not conducted. Outcome data were summarised descriptively. Eleven sites opened for recruitment for a combined total of 92 months. Three-hundred and sixteen patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were eligible (13.6%). The main reason for ineligibility was that the patient was able to mobilise independently to 3 m and back (n = 161). Of the 43 eligible participants, 36 (83.7%) were approached for consent, of whom 11 (30.6%) provided consent. The most common reason for eligible patients not consenting to take part was that they were unwilling to be randomised to a treatment (n = 10). There were 11 participants, 5 randomised to surgical management with internal fixation device and 6 to non-surgical management. The average age of participants was 83.0 years (interquartile range 76.0, 89.0) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score at 6 months post randomisation (n = 8) was 0.32 (standard deviation 0.37). A limitation of the trial was that study objectives were not addressed due to poor recruitment. Conclusions: It was not feasible to recruit to this trial in the current context. Further research to understand the treatment and recovery pathways of this group of patients, along with their outcomes, would be needed prior to undertaking a future trial. Future work: Exploration of equipoise across different healthcare professional groups. Investigate longer-term patient outcomes. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16478561. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/57) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

When older adults with weak bones fall onto their side, they can fracture the pelvis in a certain way known as a 'lateral compression type-1 fracture'; this summary will use 'pelvic fracture'. Pelvic fractures can heal without surgery; patients are offered pain relief and encouraged to move as much as they can after the injury. Pelvic fractures can be painful, and some people are not able to get up and walk for weeks. These fractures can cause health problems such as chest infections, urinary tract infections, pressure sores and blood clots. To avoid these problems, we are trying to find treatments to help people recover sooner. Pelvic surgeons think patients may benefit from surgery with an internal fixation device (a bar and screws) to stabilise the pelvis; however, there can be risks and complications with any surgery. This study aimed to find out which treatment is better for patients and better value for money for the National Health Service. This required 600 people aged over 60, in hospital with a pelvic fracture and having difficulty walking to take part. Three hundred would receive surgery and 300 would receive non-surgical treatment. Over 6 months, participants would complete questionnaires, a walking assessment and have X-rays to check healing. The trial had a 12-month run-in period to see if enough people would take part. The trial closed early as we were unable to recruit sufficient people into the study. Fewer older patients with pelvic fractures were identified than expected, 51% were able to walk after a few days and therefore were not eligible to be included in the study. Of the patients, 13.6% were eligible and 30.6% of those consented to take part. Restrictions on visitors during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic made it difficult to discuss the study with patients' families and fewer patients were admitted to hospital where the study was taking place. The research question could not be answered by this study at the present time.

Acute versus staged fixation of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: a dual centre international study.

BACKGROUND: Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures pose many treatment challenges due to their complex fracture patterns and associated soft tissue compromise. We aim to evaluate outcomes of acute ORIF (aORIF) versus staged ORIF (sORIF) of high energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 186 patients at two high-volume Level I trauma centers. One hundred one patients underwent aORIF and 85 underwent sORIF between 2011 and 2019. Clinical outcomes of interest included operative time, wound dehiscence, superficial and deep infection, nonunion, flap coverage, arthrodesis, and early conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: Patients had a median follow up of 12 months (6-98 months). The sORIF group had a higher ISS (p = 0.02) and a higher rate of open fractures (24.7% vs 11.9%, p = 0.03). The groups were statistically similar in other demographics and co-morbidities. Operative time was significantly shorter in the aORIF group (157 vs 213 min., p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in wound dehiscence, deep infection, flap coverage, nonunion, unplanned reoperation, or post-traumatic arthritis between groups. However, aORIF was associated with a significantly lower rate of superficial infection (p = 0.01), arthroplasty (p = 0.003) and unplanned reoperation (p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of only the 41C3 fractures showed a lower rate of superficial infections in the aORIF group (p = 0.04). No difference in complications was found between the fracture subgroups. CONCLUSION: We found no increased risk of complications with aORIF compared to sORIF for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. While not all injuries may be appropriate for aORIF, our results demonstrate the safety of aORIF when patients are properly selected by experienced fracture surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Connectivity-guided intermittent theta burst versus repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a randomized controlled trial.

Disruption in reciprocal connectivity between the right anterior insula and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is associated with depression and may be a target for neuromodulation. In a five-center, parallel, double-blind, randomized controlled trial we personalized resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging neuronavigated connectivity-guided intermittent theta burst stimulation (cgiTBS) at a site based on effective connectivity from the right anterior insula to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. We tested its efficacy in reducing the primary outcome depression symptoms measured by the GRID Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item over 8, 16 and 26 weeks, compared with structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivered at the standard stimulation site (F3) in patients with 'treatment-resistant depression'. Participants were randomly assigned to 20 sessions over 4-6 weeks of either cgiTBS (n = 128) or rTMS (n = 127) with resting-state functional MRI at baseline and 16 weeks. Persistent decreases in depressive symptoms were seen over 26 weeks, with no differences between arms on the primary outcome GRID Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item score (intention-to-treat adjusted mean, -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.87, 1.24, P = 0.689). Two serious adverse events were possibly related to TMS (mania and psychosis). MRI-neuronavigated cgiTBS and rTMS were equally effective in patients with treatment-resistant depression over 26 weeks (trial registration no. ISRCTN19674644).

Towards richer knowledge partnerships between ecology and ethnoecology.

Indigenous and traditional practices based on ethnoecological knowledge are fundamental to biodiversity stewardship and sustainable use. Knowledge partnerships between Indigenous Peoples, traditional local communities, and ecologists can produce richer and fairer understandings of nature. We identify key topical areas where such collaborations can positively transform science, policy, and practice.

To have and to hold: An exploratory qualitative study exploring why research participants with treatment-resistant depression undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment requested copies of their research brain MRI scans.

PURPOSE: There has been little research providing an in-depth exploration of the reasons behind research participants, particularly in mental health settings, requesting copies of their research data, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. BRIGhTMIND is a large double blind randomised controlled trial using functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging to create personalised targets for transcranial magnetic stimulation delivery, and a number of trial participants requested copies of these scans. METHODS: Seven participants involved in the BRIGhTMIND trial completed semi-structured interviews exploring their reasons behind their request for copies of their MRI scans. The qualitative data was co-analysed between researchers and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The interviews produced consistent themes concerning curiosity to visualise their MRI scans, and the hope that their participation would result in a better understanding of the nature and future treatment of depression. Concerns around the rights to access their own personal health data emerged as a clear theme as did their own ability to interpret any radiological information. DISCUSSION: This study provides insight into the reasons why research participants with depression would like to retain copies of their MRI scans and the perceived role that such techniques may have for improving research and neuromodulation treatments in depression. Such first-hand experiential accounts emphasises the importance of listening to participants perspectives and lived experience, in order to improve research and health outcomes. Future research could aim to provide greater verbal and written information for participants, including details about the accessibility to their MRI scans, the difference between research and clinical MRI scans, and educational materials to help with the interpretation of MRI images.

Causes and associations with mortality in patients with pelvic ring injuries with haemorrhagic shock.

BACKGROUND: High energy pelvic ring injuries are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and can be accompanied by haemorrhagic shock following associated vascular injury. This study evaluated the causes and predictors of mortality in haemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. METHODS: This retrospective observational study at a Major Trauma Centre reviewed 938 consecutive adult patients (≥ 18yrs) with pelvic ring injuries between December 2014 and November 2018. Patients with features of haemorrhagic shock were included, defined as: arrival Systolic BP < 90 mmHg, Base Deficit ≥ 6.0 mmol/l, or transfusion of ≥ 4 units of packed red blood cells within 24 h. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients included, all sustained injuries from high energy trauma, and 47.1% underwent a haemorrhage control intervention (Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta-REBOA, Interventional Radiology-IR, or Laparotomy). These were more often required following vertical shear injuries (OR 10.7, p = 0.036). Overall, 33 patients (32.4%) died; 16 due to a head injury, and only 2 directly from acute pelvic exsanguination (6.1%). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that increasing age, Injury Severity Score, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) Head ≥ 3 and open pelvic fracture were all independent predictors of mortality, and IR was associated with reduced mortality. Lateral Compression III (LC3) injuries were associated with mortality due to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). CONCLUSION: Haemodynamically unstable patients with pelvic ring injuries have a high mortality rate, but death is usually attributed to other injuries or later complications, and not from acute exsanguination. This reflects improvements in resuscitative care, transfusion protocols, and haemorrhage control techniques.

Acute versus delayed total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) is a disabling complication of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acetabular fractures. There is a trend towards acute total hip arthroplasty (THA), 'fix-and-replace', in patients considered to have a poor prognosis and likelihood of PTOA. Controversy remains between early fix-and-replace, versus delayed THA as required after initial ORIF. This systematic review included studies comparing functional and clinical outcomes between acute versus delayed THA after displaced acetabular fractures. METHODS: Comprehensive searches following the PRISMA guideline were performed on six databases for articles in English published anytime up to 29 March 2021. Two authors screened articles and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Patient demographics, fracture classification, functional and clinical outcomes were compiled and analysed. RESULTS: The search yielded 2770 unique studies, of which five retrospective studies were identified with a total of 255 patients. Of them, 138 (54.1%) were treated with acute and 117 (45.9%) treated with delayed THA. Delayed THA group represented a younger cohort compared to the acute group (mean age, 64.3 vs 73.3). The mean follow-up time for the acute and delayed group was 23 and 50 months, respectively. There was no difference in functional outcomes between the two study groups. Complication and mortality rates were comparable. Delayed THA had a higher revision rate compared to the acute group (17.1 vs 4.3%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Fix-and-replace had functional outcomes and complication rates similar to ORIF and delayed THA, but lower revision rates. Although the quality of studies was mixed, sufficient equipoise now exists to justify randomised studies in this area. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021235730.

Lateral compression type 1 fracture fixation in the elderly (L1FE): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot) comparing the effects of INFIX surgery and non-surgical management for treating patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lateral compression type1 (LC-1) fragility fractures are a common, painful injury in older adults resulting in reduced mobility. The incidence of these fractures is increasing with the growing older adult population. The current standard of care is non-surgical management; however, patients with this injury are at risk of long-term immobility and related complications. INFIX is a pelvic fixation device used in younger patients with high-energy fractures. The device is fitted via a percutaneous technique with no external pin sites and has good purchase even in osteoporotic bone. It therefore has the potential to be well tolerated in patients with LC-1 fragility fractures. INFIX could improve patients' ability to mobilise and reduce the risk of immobility-related complications. However, there is a risk of complications related to surgery, and robust evidence is required on patient outcomes. This study will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation with INFIX compared to non-surgical management of LC-1 fragility fractures in older adults. METHODS: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of 600 patients allocated 1:1 to non-surgical management or INFIX surgery. The study will have a 12-month internal pilot to assess recruitment and trial feasibility. The primary outcome will be the patient quality of life over 6 months, measured by the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L. The secondary outcomes will include physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, imaging assessment, resource use, and complications. DISCUSSION: The L1FE study aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical management of people aged 60 years and older with LC-1 fragility fractures. The trial is sufficiently powered and rigorously designed to inform future clinical and patient decision-making and allocation of NHS resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN16478561. Registered on 8 April 2019.

Is bisphosphonate use a risk factor for atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fractures? - A metanalysis of retrospective cohort studies and systematic review of the current evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fractures are not recognised in any widely used classification and therefore little focus is given to them. Multiple case reports and case series demonstrate these fractures exist and are related to bisphosphonate (BP) use. HYPOTHESIS: Are patients taking long-term BPs at an increased risk of developing an atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fracture? Is a particular BP drug causing an increased risk of fracture? Is there a correlation between the time of BP use and the incidence of fractures? Do vitamin D analogues or parathyroid hormones reduce the time to union? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review of all available evidence on the existence of periprosthetic/peri-implant atypical fractures in patients taking long-term BPs and metanalysis of available retrospective cohort studies. Selected 1 systematic review, 7 retrospective cohort studies (5 used for metanalysis) and 32 case reports. RESULTS: Metanalysis reported a risk ratio of 14.1, p=0.25, suggesting bisphosphonates are a risk factor in the development of periprosthetic/peri-implant atypical fractures. The secondary outcomes couldn't be reliably identified due to the small size of available studies and risk of significant bias. DISCUSSION: Atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fractures are an entity and seem to be associated with the use of bisphosphonates. The benefits of bisphosphonates use outweigh the risks, but clinicians should be aware of atypical fractures and actively search for them when patients on long-term bisphosphonates attend with non-specific pain close to the implant/prosthesis or reduced mobility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Systematic review and metanalysis.

Erector Spinae Plane Blocks for the Early Analgesia of Rib Fractures in Trauma (ESPEAR): protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial with feasibility and embedded qualitative assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rib fractures commonly experience significant acute pain and are at risk of hypoxia, retained secretions, respiratory failure and death. Effective analgesia improves these outcomes. There is widespread variation in analgesic treatments given to patients including oral, intravenous and epidural routes of administration. Erector spinae plane (ESP) blockade, a novel regional analgesic technique, may be effective, but high-quality evidence is lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To determine if a definitive trial of ESP blockade in rib fractures is possible, we are conducting a multicentre, randomised controlled pilot study with feasibility and qualitative assessment. Fifty adult patients with rib fractures will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to ESP blockade with multimodal analgesia or placebo ESP blockade with multimodal analgesia. Participants and outcome assessors will be blinded. The primary feasibility outcomes are recruitment rate, retention rate and trial acceptability assessed by interview. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Oxford B Research Ethics Committee on 22 February 2022 (REC reference: 22/SC/0005). All participants will provide written consent. Trial results will be reported via peer review and to grant funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49307616.

Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing in England (RECOLLECT): rationale and protocol.

BACKGROUND: Recovery Colleges are a relatively recent initiative within mental health services. The first opened in 2009 in London and since then numbers have grown. They are based on principles of personal recovery in mental health, co-production between people with lived experience of mental health problems and professionals, and adult learning. Student eligibility criteria vary, but all serve people who use mental health services, with empirical evidence of benefit. Previously we developed a Recovery College fidelity measure and a preliminary change model identifying the mechanisms of action and outcomes for this group, which we refer to as service user students. The Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) study is a five-year (2020-2025) programme of research in England. The aim of RECOLLECT is to determine Recovery Colleges' effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and identify organisational influences on fidelity and improvements in mental health outcomes.  METHODS: RECOLLECT comprises i) a national survey of Recovery Colleges, ii) a prospective cohort study to establish the relationship between fidelity, mechanisms of action and psychosocial outcomes, iii) a prospective cohort study to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, iv) a retrospective cohort study to determine the relationship between Recovery College use and outcomes and mental health service use, and v) organisational case studies to establish the contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and outcomes. The programme has been developed with input from individuals who have lived experience of mental health problems. A Lived Experience Advisory Panel will provide input into all stages of the research. DISCUSSION: RECOLLECT will provide the first rigorous evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges in England, to inform their prioritising, commissioning, and running. The validated RECOLLECT multilevel change model will confirm the active components of Recovery Colleges. The fidelity measure and evidence about the fidelity-outcome relationship will provide an empirically-based approach to develop Recovery Colleges, to maximise benefits for students. Findings will be disseminated through the study website (researchintorecovery.com/recollect) and via national and international Recovery College networks to maximise impact, and will shape policy on how Recovery Colleges can help those with mental health problems lead empowered, meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Epidemiology of pelvic and acetabular fractures across 12-mo at a level-1 trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: Despite motor-vehicle safety advancements and increasingly rigorous workplace safety regulations, trauma/suicide remains the leading cause of death under the age of 45 in the United Kingdom. To promote centralisation of care and optimisation of major trauma outcomes, in 2012 the National Health Service introduced the Trauma Network System. To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyse the epidemiology of pelvic and acetabular trauma over a one-year period at a level-1 trauma centre in the United Kingdom, since nationwide introduction of the Trauma Network System. AIM: To characterize the epidemiology of high-energy pelvic and acetabular fractures over a one-year period at a level-1 trauma centre, and explore both resources required to care for these patients and opportunities for future research and injury prevention initiatives. METHODS: 227 consecutive patients at a level-1 trauma centre with pelvic and acetabular fractures were analysed between December 2017-December 2018. Paediatric patients (< 18 years) and fragility fractures were excluded, leaving 175 patients for inclusion in the study. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: 72% of pelvic and acetabular fractures occurred in male patients at a median age of 45 years. 15% were the result of a suicide attempt. 48% of patients required pelvic or acetabular surgery, with 38% undergoing further surgery for additional orthopaedic injuries. 43% of patients were admitted to intensive care. The median inpatient stay was 13 days, and the 30- day mortality was 5%. Pelvic ring trauma was more commonly associated with abdominal injury (P = 0.01) and spine fractures (P < 0.001) than acetabular fractures. Vertical shear pelvic ring fractures were associated with falls (P = 0.03) while lateral compression fractures were associated with road traffic accidents (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: High energy pelvic and acetabular fractures are associated with concomitant orthopaedic fractures (most commonly spine and lower limb), intensive care admission and prolonged inpatient stays. Most pelvic ring injuries secondary to road traffic accidents are lateral compression type, demonstrating the need for future research to drive advancements in lateral impact vehicle safety along with mental health surveillance for those deemed to be potential suicide risks.

Fragility fractures of the pelvis in the older population.

Pelvic fractures are an increasingly common injury seen in the older population and represent a significant burden of morbidity and mortality in this age group, as well as a large financial burden on the health service. It is well established that early fixation of femoral neck and acetabular fractures improves outcomes and increases the chances of patients returning close to their premorbid functional baseline. However, fixation of fragility fractures of the pelvis is less well established in current practice. There has been recent development of novel stabilisation techniques for unstable pelvic fractures, designed to tackle the difficulties associated with fixation in poor bone quality, along with medical trials of parathyroid hormone analogue treatment. However, it is still current practice to manage nearly all fragility fractures of the pelvis conservatively. In this article, we consider whether the development of surgical stabilisation techniques for pelvic fragility fractures may have the potential to improve the well-described morbidity and mortality associated with them.

Theatre efficiency in COVID-19 pandemic conditions: The collaborative experience of four level 1 major trauma centres in the UK.

AIMS: As the world continues to fight successive waves of COVID-19 variants, we have seen worldwide infections surpass 100 million. London, UK, has been severely affected throughout the pandemic, and the resulting impact on the NHS has been profound. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on theatre productivity across London's four major trauma centres (MTCs), and to assess how the changes to normal protocols and working patterns impacted trauma theatre efficiency. METHODS: This was a collaborative study across London's MTCs. A two-month period was selected from 5 March to 5 May 2020. The same two-month period in 2019 was used to provide baseline data for comparison. Demographic information was collected, as well as surgical speciality, procedure, time to surgery, type of anaesthesia, and various time points throughout the patient journey to theatre. RESULTS: In total, 1,243 theatre visits were analyzed as part of the study. Of these, 834 patients presented in 2019 and 409 in 2020. Fewer open reduction and internal fixations were performed in 2020 (33.5% vs 38.2%), and there was an increase in the number of orthoplastic cases in 2020 (8.3% vs 2.2%), both statistically significant results (p < 0.000). There was a statistically significant increase in median time from 2019 to 2020, between sending for a patient and their arrival to the anaesthetic room (29 vs 35 minutes; p = 0.000). Median time between arrival in the anaesthetic room and commencement of anaesthetic increased (7 to 9 minutes; p = 0.104). CONCLUSION: Changes in working practices necessitated by COVID-19 led to modest delays to all aspects of theatre use, and consequently theatre efficiency. However, the reality is that the major concerns of impact of service did not occur to the levels that were expected. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):886-892.

The Effect of Delayed Surgical Debridement in the Management of Open Tibial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with variable outcomes that significantly impact patients' lives. Surgical debridement is paramount in preventing detrimental complications such as infection and non-union; however, the exact timing of debridement remains a topic of great controversy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between timing of surgical debridement and outcomes such as infection and non-union in open tibial fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to capture studies evaluating the association between timing of initial surgical debridement and infection or non-union, or other reported outcomes. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central and Web of Science electronic databases. Our methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. RESULTS: The systematic review included 20 studies with 10,032 open tibial fractures. The overall infection rate was 14.3% (314 out of 2193) and the overall non-union rate 14.2% (116 out of 817). We did not find any statistically significant association between delayed debridement and infection rate (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.11; p = 0.23) or non-union rate (OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.15; p = 0.13). These findings did not change when we accounted for the effect of different time thresholds used for defining early and late debridement, nor with the Gustilo-Anderson classification or varying study characteristics. CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis support that delayed surgical debridement does not increase the infection or non-union rates in open tibial fracture injuries. Consequently, we propose that a reasonable delay in the initial debridement is acceptable to ensure that optimal management conditions are in place, such that the availability of surgical expertise, skilled staff and equipment are prioritised over getting to surgery rapidly. We recommend changing the standard guidance around timing for performing surgical debridement to 'as soon as reasonably possible, once appropriate personnel and equipment are available; ideally within 24-h'.

Removal of iliosacral screws: the washer problem.

Iliosacral screw removal is an infrequent surgery, and when needed, removal of the washer can be surprisingly difficult. Different forceps, clamps and other non-specific instruments are frequently used to this end, many a time without success, or at the expense of tissue damage, blood loss and radiation exposure. After trying all the tricks in the book, we devised this neat little surgical tactic that ensures easy and reliable retrieval of the washer when removing iliosacral screws percutaneously, with no increased morbidity.

Evidence-based approach to providing informed consent for hip fracture surgery during the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are the most common reason for inpatient orthopaedic trauma admission. Urgent surgical intervention for hip fractures has remained a clinical priority throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Despite this, there is a paucity of clinical guidance addressing the informed consent process for hip fracture surgery in COVID-19 positive patients. This is of paramount medicolegal importance in a high-risk patient population. AIM: To quantify the additional perioperative risks for COVID-19 positive patients undergoing hip fracture surgery and provide clinicians with an evidence-based framework to establish an informed consent process. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty nine consecutive patients undergoing surgical intervention for hip fractures in four hospitals in the United Kingdom were recruited. 51 patients were confirmed positive for COVID-19. Predefined outcomes were analyzed over a 30-d postoperative period. COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients were compared after adjustment for confounding factors. RESULTS: COVID-19 positive patients had more intensive care admissions (27% vs 5%, P < 0.001), longer inpatient stays (median 23 d vs 9 d, P < 0.001) and a higher 30-d mortality (29% vs 10%, P = 0.001) than COVID-19 negative patients. Postoperative complications were evident in 74.5% of COVID-19 positive patients. 35.3% of COVID-19 positive patients suffered postoperative lower respiratory tract infections with 13.7% developing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and 9.8% experiencing symptomatic thromboembolic events. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty in the medical community worldwide and poses unique challenges in providing informed consent for surgery. COVID-19 positive patients undergoing hip fracture surgery should be consented for the additional risk of postoperative complications (including lower respiratory tract infection, ARDS, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), increased requirement for intensive care admission, longer inpatient stay and higher risk of mortality. Further, clinicians must be transparent about the potential for unknown risks as research into the long-term surgical outcomes of COVID-19 positive patients continues to evolve.

Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic ring injuries: a spectrum of fracture types and treatment algorithms.

Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) fractures are the commonest pelvic ring injury. However, they represent a heterogenous spectrum of injury mechanisms and fracture patterns, resulting in a lack of strong evidence for a universally agreed treatment algorithm. Although consensus exists that LC1 fractures have a preserved posterior ligamentous complex and are vertically stable, controversy persists around defining internal rotational instability. As such, treatment strategies extend from routine non-operative management through to dynamic imaging such as examination under anaesthetic (EUA) or stress radiographs to guide fixation algorithm. Multiple protocols sit between these two, all with slightly different thresholds for advocating surgery or otherwise, exemplifying a broad lack of consensus that is not seen for other, more severe, grades of pelvic ring injury. In the following review we discuss the evolving concepts of pelvic ring instability and management, starting from a historical perspective, through to current trends and controversies in LC1 fracture treatment. Emerging directions for research and emerging pharmacological and surgical treatments/technologies are also considered and expert commentary from 3 leading centres provided. The distinction is made between LC1 fracture arising from high-energy trauma and those following low-energy falls from standing height (so-called fragility fractures of the pelvis-FFP), since these two patient groups have different functional requirements and medical vulnerabilities. Issues pertaining to FFP are considered separately.