Aim:The Covid-19 pandemic has delayed elective colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. The aim of this study was to see whether or not this may affect overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).Method: A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020189158). Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were interrogated. Patients aged over 18 years with a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer who received elective surgery as their primary treatment were included. Delay to elective surgery was defined as the period between CRC diagnosis and the day of surgery. Meta-analysis of the outcomes OS and DFS were conducted. Forest plots, funnel plots and tests of heterogeneity were produced. An estimated number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated for statistically significant pooled hazard ratios (HRs).Results: Of 3753 articles identified, seven met the inclusion criteria. Encompassing 314 560 patients, three of the seven studies showed that a delay to elective resection is associated with poorer OS or DFS. OS was assessed at a 1 month delay, the HR for six datasets was 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.26, p = 0.020) and at 3 months the pooled HR for three datasets was 1.57 (95% CI 1.16-2.12, p = 0.004). The estimated NNH for a delay at 1 month and 3 months was 35 and 10 respectively. Delay was nonsignificantly negatively associated with DFS on meta-analysis. Conclusion:This review recommends that elective surgery for CRC patients is not postponed longer than 4 weeks, as available evidence suggests extended delays from diagnosis are associated with poorer outcomes. Focused research is essential so patient groups can be prioritized based on risk factors in future delays or pandemics.

AimsEarly detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is associated with improved outcomes of conservative treatment. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate a novel screening programme that included both the primary risk factors of breech presentation and family history, and the secondary risk factors of oligohydramnios and foot deformities.MethodsA five-year prospective registry study investigating every live birth in the study’s catchment area (n = 27,731), all of whom underwent screening for risk factors and examination at the newborn and six- to eight-week neonatal examination and review. DDH was diagnosed using ultrasonography and the Graf classification system, defined as grade IIb or above or rapidly regressing IIa disease (≥4o at four weeks follow-up). Multivariate odds ratios were calculated to establish significant association, and risk differences were calculated to provide quantifiable risk increase with DDH, positive predictive value was used as a measure of predictive efficacy. The cost-effectiveness of using these risk factors to predict DDH was evaluated using NHS tariffs (January 2021).ResultsThe prevalence of DDH that required treatment within our population was 5/1,000 live births. The rate of missed presentation of DDH was 0.43/1000 live births. Breech position, family history, oligohydramnios, and foot deformities demonstrated significant association with DDH (p < 0.0001). The presence of breech presentation increased the risk of DDH by 1.69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93% to 2.45%), family history by 3.57% (95% CI 2.06% to 5.09%), foot deformities by 8.95% (95% CI 4.81% to 13.1%), and oligohydramnios nby 11.6% (95 % CI 3.0% to 19.0%). Primary risk factors family history and breech presentation demonstrated an estimated cost-per-case detection of £6,276 and £11,409, respectively. Oligohydramnios and foot deformities demonstrated a cost-per-case detected less than the cost of primary risk factors of £2,260 and £2,670, respectively.ConclusionThe inclusion of secondary risk factors within a national screening programme was clinically successful as they were more cost and resource-efficient predictors of DDH than primary risk factors, suggesting they should be considered in the national guidance.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):234–240.

Aims Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. Methods This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a “poor” understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. Conclusion There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549–556.

No abstract

Aim The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has interrupted the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). This systematic review will assess literature concerning the risk of delay of elective surgery for CRC patients, focusing on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Method A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020189158). Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were searched. Delay to elective surgery was defined as the period between CRC diagnosis and the day of surgery. Metanalyses of the outcome’s OS and DFS were conducted. Forest plots, funnel plots, and tests of heterogeneity were produced. An estimated Number Needed to Harm (NNH) was calculated for statistically significant pooled Hazard Ratios (HRs). Results Of 3753 articles identified, seven met the inclusion criteria. Encompassing 314560 patients, three of the seven studies showed that a delay to elective resection is associated with poorer OS or DFS. OS was assessed at a one-month delay, the HR for six datasets was 1.13 (95%CI 1.02-1.26, p = 0.020) and at three months the pooled HR for three datasets was 1.57 (95%CI 1.16-2.12, p = 0.004). Estimated NNHs for a delay at one month and three months were 35 and 10 respectively. Delay was non-significantly negatively associated with DFS on meta-analysis. Conclusions This review recommends that elective surgery for CRC patients is not postponed, as evidence suggests delays from diagnosis are associated with poorer outcomes. Focused research is essential so that patient groups can be prioritized based on risk factors for future pandemics.

No abstract

IntroductionThere is little evidence surrounding the clinical implications of a diagnosis of IIa hip dysplasia with no consensus as to its efficacy as a predictor pathological dysplasia or treatment. Therefore, we evaluated the importance of categorising 2a hip dysplasia in to 2a- and 2a+ to better understand the clinical outcomes of each.MethodsA 9-year retrospective cohort study of patients with a diagnosis of type IIa hip dysplasia between 2011 – 2020 (n=341) in our centre. Ultrasound scans were graded using Graf's classification, assessment of management and DDH progression was completed through prospective data collection by the authors.ResultsThe prevalence of IIa hip dysplasia within our population was 6.7/1000 live births. There was significantly higher incidence of treatment in the IIa- (31.4%, n=17/54) group when compared to the 2a+ group (10%, n=28/287), (p<0.01). In those that had an abnormality (torticollis and/or foot abnormality) treatment rates (24% n=7/29) were significantly (p<0.05) higher than those without anatomical abnormality (15%, n=48/312).ConclusionThis study has demonstrated the significant clinical impact of a IIa- diagnosis on progression to pathological dysplasia and therefore higher rates of treatment in IIa- hips. Furthermore, we have demonstrated the importance of detection of IIa hips through a national screening program, to allow for timely intervention to prevent missing the acetabular maturation window. Therefore, it is our recommendation that all patients with additional anatomical abnormalities and those with a diagnosis of type IIa- hip dysplasia be considered for immediate treatment or urgent follow up following their diagnosis to prevent late conservative intervention.