Purpose; The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated profound adaptations in the delivery of healthcare to manage a rise in critically unwell patients. In an attempt to slow the spread of the virus nationwide lockdown restrictions were introduced. This review aims to scope the literature on the impact of the pandemic and subsequent lockdown on the presentation and management of trauma globally. Methods; A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was carried out on the Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to identify papers investigating presentation and management of trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic. All studies based on patients admitted with orthopaedic trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Exclusion criteria were opinion-based reports, reviews, studies that did not provide quantitative data and papers not in English. Results; Three hundred and thirty seven studies were screened, with 17 meeting the eligibility criteria. Studies reported on the footfall of trauma in the UK, Europe, Asia, USA, Australia and New Zealand. A total of 29,591 patients during the pandemic were considered. Mean age was 43.7 years (range <1–103); 54.8% were male. Reported reductions in trauma footfall ranged from 20.3% to 84.6%, with a higher proportion of trauma occurring secondary to interpersonal violence, deliberate self-harm and falls from a height. A decrease was seen in road traffic collisions, sports injuries and trauma occurring outdoors. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients managed operatively, and the number of trauma patients reported to be COVID-19 positive was low. Conclusion; Whilst the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has caused a reduction in the number of trauma patients; the services managing trauma have continued to function despite infrastructural, personnel and pathway changes in health systems. The substantial effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on elective orthopaedics is well described, however the contents of this review evidence minimal change in the delivery of effective trauma care despite resource constraints during this global COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Recent developments in hip arthroscopic techniques and technology have made it possible in many cases to avoid open surgical dislocation for treating a variety of pathology in the hip. Although early reports suggest favourable results' using hip arthroscopy and it has been shown to be a relatively safe procedure, complications do exist and can sometimes lead to significant morbidity. Methods: This is a review article. The aim of this manuscript is to present the most frequent and/or serious complications that could occur at or following hip arthroscopy and some guidelines to avoid these complications. Conclusion: Most complications of hip arthroscopy are minor or transient but serious complications can occur as well. A lot of complication e.g. acetabular labral puncture go unreported. Appropriate education and training, precise and meticulous surgical technique with correct instrumentation, the right indication in the right patient and adherence to advice from mentors and experienced colleagues are all essential factors for a successful outcome. Level of evidence: V.

ImportancePrehabilitation programs for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery have been gaining popularity in recent years. However, the current literature has produced varying results.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether prehabilitation is associated with improved preoperative and postoperative outcomes compared with usual care for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.Data SourcesBibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], AMED [Allied and Complementary Medicine], Embase, PEDRO [Physiotherapy Evidence Database], and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for published trials, and the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and European clinical trials registry were searched for unpublished trials from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2022.Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing prehabilitation with standard care for any orthopedic surgical procedure were included.Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo independent reviewers screened trials. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Recommendations were determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system and the study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPain, function, muscle strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).ResultsForty-eight unique trials involving 3570 unique participants (2196 women [61.5%]; mean [SD] age, 64.1 [9.1] years) were analyzed. Preoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) for function (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.70 [95% CI, −1.08 to −0.32]) and muscle strength and flexion (SMD, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.23-1.77]) and for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for HRQOL on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (weighted mean difference [WMD], 7.35 [95% CI, 3.15-11.54]) and muscle strength and abduction (SMD, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.03-2.02]). High-certainty evidence was reported for patients undergoing lumbar surgery for back pain (WMD, –8.20 [95% CI, −8.85 to −7.55]) and moderate-certainty evidence for HRQOL (SMD, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.13-0.78]). Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for function at 6 weeks in patients undergoing TKR (SMD, −0.51 [95% CI, −0.85 to −0.17]) and at 6 months in those undergoing lumbar surgery (SMD, −2.35 [95% CI, −3.92 to −0.79]). Other differences in outcomes favoring prehabilitation were of low to very low quality of evidence.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation over usual care in improving preoperative function and strength in TKR and HRQOL and muscle strength in THR, high-certainty evidence in reducing back pain, and moderate-certainty evidence in improving HRQOL in lumbar surgery. Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation for function following TKR at 6 weeks and lumbar surgery at 6 months. Prehabilitation showed promising results for other outcomes, although high risk of bias and heterogeneity affected overall quality of evidence. Additional RCTs with a low risk of bias investigating preoperative and postoperative outcomes for all orthopedic surgical procedures are required.

Background: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is a well-recognized procedure for the treatment of hip dysplasia in young adults and can be used for the surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with acetabular retroversion. The aim of this study was to use a national database to assess the outcomes of PAO for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and for FAI. Methods: All patients in whom an isolated PAO had been performed between January 2012 and February 2019 were identified in the Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry (NAHR). Their outcomes were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index and the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT)-12 preoperatively and then at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years postoperatively. Results: Six hundred and thirty (630) PAOs were identified, with 558 (89%) performed for DDH and 72 (11%) performed for FAI. Most patients (90%) were female. The mean age in the DDH group (31.2 years) was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than that in the FAI group (26.5 years). There were no other significant between-group demographic differences. Preoperatively and at each follow-up time-period, iHOT-12 scores were better in the DDH group than in the FAI group; however, only the preoperative scores differed significantly. There was significant improvement between the preoperative and 6-month iHOT-12 and EQ-5D index scores in both the DDH and the FAI group. This improvement was maintained at 12 months postoperatively, by which time almost 90% of the patients had achieved the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in their iHOT-12 score. Conclusions: This study shows that PAO is a successful surgical intervention for DDH and FAI in the short term, with significant improvement in patient-reported outcome scores that is maintained up to 2 years postoperatively. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.