Aim This UK based multi-centre study reports clinical characteristics, early outcomes and predictors of mortality in 34 consecutive COVID-19-positive hip fractures so that the lessons learnt could be utilised in other parts of World who are at a different phase of the pandemic. Methods This study analysed patient admitted with hip fractures with COVID positive swabs, between March and May’2020 in three large hospitals covering a population of nearly two million. Data was collected on demographic profile, peri-operative variables, post-operative complications and mortality. The specific aim was to identify any variables, which could predict high 30-day mortality. Results Overall, 12% of hip fractures were COVID positive with the mortality rate of 41.2%. The higher age ( p = 0.036) and male gender ( p = 0.025) was significantly associated with mortality and most of the deaths were between American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 3 and 4 patients. The patients having intramedullary (IM) nailing were more likely to die ( p = 0.02). There was no difference in laboratory parameters but there was significant difference in findings on chest radiographs ( p < 0.001), post-operative oxygen requirements ( p = 0.006) and early respiratory complications ( p = 0.006). Conclusion This study suggests that the mortality following surgery for a hip fracture in COVID-positive patients is strikingly high and is associated with higher age and male gender. Higher mortality has been observed for extracapsular fracture operated with intramedullary nailing. In the immediate post-operative period, rapid deterioration of chest imaging, higher oxygen requirement and early pulmonary complications can serve as warning signs and predicting factors for higher mortality.

Background On the 11th March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. Multiple new guidelines were proposed and existing models of social, domestic and hospital care altered. Most healthcare systems were largely unprepared for this, and the pandemic has tested their adaptability. This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the demographics, presentation, clinical management and outcomes of patients with proximal femoral (hip) fractures comparing them to a similar cohort of patients admitted a year earlier. Methods This retrospective multi-centre cohort study compared all patients admitted with hip fractures between 1st March and 30th May 2019 (group PC: pre-COVID-19) with hip fracture patients admitted over the same time period during the pandemic in 2020 (group C: COVID-19). The data was obtained from the hospitals’ local and National Hip Fracture Databases. Mortality data was checked with the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Primary outcomes were time to theatre, in-patient length of stay and 30-day mortality. Results A total of 580 patients were included (304 group PC, 276 group C). Patient demographics including Charlson Comorbidity Index and Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores were broadly similar across the two cohorts. There was a significant reduction in the percentage of total hip replacements (11 to 5%, p = 0.006) in group C. There was an increase in conservative management (1 to 5%, p = 0.002) in group C. Time to theatre was significantly delayed in group C (43.7 h) vs group PC (34.6 h) (p ≤ 0.001). The overall length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group PC (16.6 days) vs group C (15 days) (p = 0.025). The 30-day mortality rate in group C was 9.8% compared to 8.2% in group PC (p = 0.746), but for COVID-19 (+) patients, it was significantly higher at 38.2% vs 5.8% in COVID-19 (−) patients (p < 0.001). Conclusion This is one of the largest multi-centre comparative cohort study in the literature to date examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of hip fracture patients. Whilst mortality rates were similar in both groups, COVID-19-positive patients were almost seven times more likely to die, reflecting the seriousness of the COVID-19 infection and its sequelae in such elderly, vulnerable patients.

This is a repository copy of Time to think outside the box: 'Prompt-Individualised-Safe Management' (PR.I.S.M.) should prevail in patients with multiple injuries.

Hip fractures in the elderly population have become a ‘disease’ with increasing incidence. Most of the geriatric patients are affected by a number of comorbidities. Coagulopathies continue to be a special point of interest for the orthopaedic trauma surgeon, with the management of this high-risk group of patients a hot topic of debate among the orthopaedic community. While a universal consensus on how to manage thromboprophylaxis for this special cohort of patients has not been reached, multiple attempts to define a widely accepted protocol have been published. Cite this article: Ktistakis I, Giannoudis V, Giannoudis PV. Anticoagulation therapy and proximal femoral fracture treatment: an update. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:310-315. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160034.

The gold standard of safe-guarding the quality of published science is peer review. However, this long-standing system has not evolved in today's digital world, where there has been an explosion in the number of publications and surgical journals. A journal's quality depends not only on the quality of papers submitted but is reflected upon the quality of its peer review process. Over the past decade journals are experiencing a rapidly escalating “peer review crisis” with editors struggling in recruiting reliable reviewers who will provide their skilled work for free with ever-diminishing incentives within today's restricted time-constraints. The problem is complex and difficult to solve, but more urgent than ever. Time is valuable and academicians, researchers and clinicians are overburdened and already extremely busy publishing their own research along with their ever growing clinical and administrative duties. Fewer and fewer individuals volunteer to provide their skilled work for free which is expected. The current incentives to review do not have a big impact on one's career and therefore are not realistic effective countermeasures. As the limits of the system are constantly stretched, there will inevitably come a “point of no return” and Surgical Journals will be the ones to first take the hit as there is an overwhelming evidence of burnout in the surgical specialties and the Surgical community is almost 50% smaller than its Medical counterpart. This review identifies the potential causes of the peer-review crisis, outlines the incentives and drawbacks of being a reviewer, summarizes the currently established common practices of rewarding reviewers and the existing and potential solutions to the problem. The magnitude of the problem and unsustainability that will make it perish are discussed along with its current flaws. Finally, recommendations are made to address many of the weaknesses of the system with the hope to revive it.