The novel coronavirus pandemic, also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has placed an immense strain on healthcare systems across the entire world. Consequently, multiple federal and state governments have placed restrictions on hospitals such as limiting “elective surgery” and recommending social or physical distancing. We review the literature on several areas that have been affected including surgical selection, inpatient care, and physician well-being. These areas affecting inpatient paradigms include surgical priority, physical or social distancing, file sharing for online clinical communications, and physician wellness. During this crisis, it is important that orthopaedic departments place an emphasis on personnel safety and slowing the spread of the virus so that the department can still maintain vital functions. Physical distancing and emerging technologies such as inpatient telemedicine and online file sharing applications can enable orthopaedic programs to still function while attempting to protect medical staff and patients from the novel coronavirus spread. This literature review sought to provide evidence-based guidance to orthopaedic departments during an unprecedented time. Orthopaedic surgeons should follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when appropriate, have teams created using physical distancing, understand the department's policy on elective surgery, and engage in routines which enhance physician wellness.

Background Radial meniscus tears can cause the meniscus to be completely incompetent. This serious type of meniscus tear can be difficult to repair. Techniques have been developed that juxtapose the meniscus tear edges and are able to withstand high loads. The purpose of this study was to determine the load to failure of a reinforced suture bar repair (Rebar Repair) for radial meniscus tear and compare it to the parallel suture technique and cross-stitch technique and to compare mode of failure among all three groups. The hypothesis was that the Rebar Repair will have a higher load to failure than both the parallel technique and the cross-stitch technique and that the Rebar Repair would have a lower rate of suture cutting through the meniscus. Methods Forty-eight menisci were tested from 24 human knee specimens, with 16 menisci in each group evenly distributed between medial and lateral menisci. Radial mid body meniscal tears were recreated and repaired with one of three inside-out techniques: the 2-parallel suture technique, 2 cross-stitch sutures, and the Rebar Repair. The specimens were cycled between 5 N to 30 N and axially loaded to failure perpendicularly across the repair site. Results The average load to failure of the parallel group, cross-stitch group and Rebar Repair was 85.5 N ± 22.0, 76.2 N ± 28.8 and 124.1 N ± 27.1 respectively. The Rebar Repair had a higher load to failure than the parallel group ( p < 0.01) and cross-stitch group ( p < 0.01). There was no difference in the load to failure between the cross-stitch and parallel group ( p = 0.49). The failure mechanism was different when comparing the 3 groups ( p < 0.01). The predominant mode of failure for both the parallel and cross-stitch group was suture cutout through the meniscus (88% and 94% respectively). The Rebar Repair failed due to suture rupture in 50% and suture cutout through the meniscus in 50%. Conclusion The Rebar Repair for radial meniscus tear has a higher load to failure and a lower rate of suture cutout through the meniscus than the parallel technique and cross-stitch technique. Clinical relevance Radial meniscus tears lead to decreased hoop stresses of the meniscus and effectively a non-functional meniscus. Newer techniques may have a higher load to failure leading to more successful repairs.

Background: Patellar tendon ruptures have routinely been repaired with transosseous suture tunnels. The use of knotless suture anchors for repair has been suggested as an alternative. Purpose: To compare the load to failure and gap formation of patellar tendon repair at the inferior pole of the patella with knotless suture anchor tape versus transosseous sutures. A secondary objective was to investigate whether either technique shows an association between bone density and load to failure. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 20 human tibias with attached patellar and quadriceps tendons were sharply incised at the bone-tendon junction at the inferior pole of the patella. A total of 10 tendons were repaired using 2 knotless suture anchors in the inferior pole of the patella and a single suture tape with 2 core sutures. The other 10 tendons were repaired using No. 2 suture passed through 3 transosseous tunnels. A distracting force was then applied through the suture in the quadriceps tendon. Gap distance through load cycling at the repair site and maximum load at repair failure were then measured. Bone density was measured using computed tomography scanning. Results: No difference was found in the mean load to failure of knotless patellar tendon repair versus transosseous suture repair (367.6 ± 112.2 vs 433.9 ± 99 N, respectively; P = .12). After 250 cycles, the mean repair site gap distance was 0.85 ± 0.45 mm for the knotless patellar tendon repair versus 2.94 ± 2.03 mm for the transosseous suture repair ( P = .03). A small correlation, although not statistically significant, was found between bone density and load to failure for the knotless tape repair ( R 2 = 0.228; P = .66). No correlation was found between bone density and load to failure for the transosseous repair ( R 2 = 0.086; P = .83). Conclusion: Suture tape repair with knotless anchors for repair of patellar tendon rupture has comparable load to failure with less gap formation than transosseous suture repair. There is a small correlation between bone density and failure load for knotless anchor repair, which may benefit from further investigation. Clinical Relevance: Using knotless suture anchors for patellar tendon rupture repair would allow for a smaller incision, less dissection, and likely shorter operating time.

Carpal tunnel, first DC, and RC injections had an accuracy of greater than 90%. Thumb CMC injections have a lower accuracy (63%) and one can improve accuracy with U/S. The accuracy of U/S-guided injections is dependent on the user and their experience.