There are advocates of both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) templating methods for planning total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant size prediction when using 2D and 3D templating methods for total hip arthroplasty, as well as to compare the inter- and intra-observer reliability in order to determine whether currently available methods are sufficiently reliable and reproducible. Medline, EMBASE and PubMed were searched to identify studies that compared the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating for total hip replacement. Results were screened using the PRISMA flowchart and included studies were assessed for their level of evidence using the Oxford CEBM criteria. Non-randomized trials were critically appraised using the MINORS tool, whilst randomized trials were assessed using the CASP RCT checklist. A series of meta-analyses of the data for accuracy were also conducted. Ten studies reported that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of templating for total hip replacement. Six studies compared 3D templating with 2D templating, all of which concluded that 3D templating was more accurate, with three finding a statistically significant difference. The meta-analyses showed that 3D CT templating is the most accurate method. This review supports the hypothesis that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of preoperative planning, which is more accurate than 2D templating for predicting implant size. However, further research is needed to ascertain the significance of this improved accuracy and whether it will yield any clinical benefit.

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and the inter- and intra-observer reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction for the planning of cemented or uncemented THA. This study was registered in the NIHR PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020216649) and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of electronic databases in March 2021 found 29 papers overall. The quality of evidence was assessed using the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist and the CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted, and the accuracy was presented as proportions and the inter- and intra-observer reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Accuracy within one prosthesis size (±1) for cemented stems was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–0.95), cemented cups 0.78 (95% CI 0.67–0.89), uncemented stems 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.82) and uncemented cups 0.73 (95% CI 0.67–0.79) (test of group differences: p = 0.010). Inter-observer reliability (ICC) for uncemented cups was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85–0.91), uncemented stems 0.86 (95% CI 0.81–0.91), cemented stems 0.69 (95% CI 0.54–0.84) and cemented cups 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.81) (test of group differences: p = 0.004). Due to lack of data, intra-observer reliability (ICC) could only be calculated for uncemented prostheses, which for the stems was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88–0.92) and for the cups was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83–0.90) (test of group differences: p = 0.124). The accuracy of preoperative digital templating is greater for cemented prostheses, but the inter-observer reliability is greater for uncemented prostheses. The intra-observer reliability showed a high level of agreement for uncemented prostheses. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1020-1039. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210048

IntroductionThe traditional treatment for patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy caused by degenerative disc disease was anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, a documented complication of ACDF is adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). An alternative that was developed was total disc replacement (TDR).The aim of this study was to determine and compare the short-and medium-to-long-term outcomes after a TDR or ACDF. MethodsA retrospective review of 154 patients who had single and two-level ACDFs and 90 TDRs performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017 was conducted. Parameters for comparisons include both radiological evaluation and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) at six weeks, one year, and two years postoperatively. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain are used to evaluate pain, function, patient satisfaction, and overall clinical success. ResultsTDR and ACDF showed significant improvement in NDI and VAS when compared to pre-and postoperatively at both six weeks (p<0.05 & P=0.032, respectively) and two years (p<0.05 & 0=0.026, respectively). TDR vs. ACDF showed no significant difference (p<0.05). VAS scores after ACDF showed improvement from 13.41 to 3.94 at two years (p<0.001). TDR showed similar scores of 12.5 to 3.55 (p<0.001). The radiological fusion rate at 12 or 24 months showed no significant difference between the two groups. There were two cases that required re-operation after ACDF (1.2%), and two that required TDR (2.2%). ConclusionBoth TDR and ACDF lead to clinically significant improvements in pain and function scores. We did not find a statistically significant difference in NDI and VAS in the neck and arm.The results are in agreement with others' assessments of these two treatment modalities. Our conclusions supplement the literature about these operative options for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and are a useful addition to the armamentarium in the assessment of patients with degenerative pathology of the c-spine.

Aims There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53.

Aims The estimated cost of running an NHS theatre is 20 pounds per minute therefore it is essential that theatres runs as efficiently as possible to reduce waste. After elective services were restarted a disproportionate increase in late theatre start times was observed. An audit was carried out to evaluate whether team meetings were beginning on time (08:00) and if not; the length of and reason for the delay. These findings were presented at Clinical Governance and a re-audit was done to see if there had been any improvement. Method Data was recorded on an audit proforma in each theatre before the first case. This was done for 2 weeks over 12 days of theatre sessions and subsequently analysed to evaluate if practice was compliant with local theatre protocols. Results First cycle – average team brief start time of 08:05 with 17/18 (94%) of late starts due to surgeon/anaesthetist lateness. Second cycle - average team brief start time of 08:08 with 10/22 (45%) of late starts due to surgeon/anaesthetist lateness. Conclusions Late starts led to further delays to the patient being sent for and arriving in theatre; late starts were usually caused by doctors/surgeons. The proportion of late starts due to the surgeon/anaesthetist (45%) decreased compared to the first cycle (94%) suggesting that theatre team members successfully adapted their practices following changes to local protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of extraneous factors were also attributed to the later average start times in the second cycle.