PurposeAcute compartment syndrome is a condition whereby tissue ischaemia occurs due to increased pressure in a closed myofascial compartment. It is a surgical emergency, with rapid recognition and treatment—the keys to good outcomes.MethodsThe available literature on diagnostic aids was reviewed by one of the senior authors 15 years ago. Now, we have further reviewed the literature, to aim to ascertain what progress has been made.ResultsIn this review, we present the evidence around a variety of available diagnostic options when investigating a potential case of acute compartment syndrome, including those looking at pressure changes, localised oxygenation, perfusion, metabolic changes and available blood serum biomarkers.ConclusionsA significant amount of work has been put into developing modalities of diagnosis for acute compartment syndrome in the last 15 years. There is a lot of promising outcomes being reported; however, there is yet to be any conclusive evidence to suggest that they should be used over intracompartmental pressure measurement, which remains the gold standard. However, clinicians should be cognizant that compartment pressure monitoring lacks diagnostic specificity, and could lead to unnecessary fasciotomy when used as the sole criterion for diagnosis. Therefore, pressure monitoring is ideally used in situations where clinical suspicion is raised.

BackgroundCOVID-19 has had a detrimental impact on access to hip and knee arthroplasty surgery. We set out to examine whether this had a subsequent impact on preoperative opioid prescribing rates for those awaiting surgery.MethodsData regarding patient demographics and opioid utilisation were collected from the electronic health records of included patients at a large university teaching hospital. Patients on the outpatient waiting list for primary hip and knee arthroplasty as of September 2020 (COVID-19 group) were compared with historical controls (Controls) who had previously undergone surgery. A sample size calculation indicated 452 patients were required to detect a 15% difference in opioid prescription rates between groups.ResultsA total of 548 patients (58.2% female) were included, 260 in the COVID-19 group and 288 in the Controls. Baseline demographics were similar between the groups. For those with data available, the proportion of patients on any opioid at follow-up in the COVID-19 group was significantly higher: 55.0% (143/260) compared with 41.2% (112/272) in the Controls (p=0.002). This remained significant when adjusted for confounding (age, gender, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, procedure and wait time). The proportion of patients on a strong opioid was similar (4.2% (11/260) vs 4.8% (13/272)) for COVID-19 and Controls, respectively. The median waiting time from referral to follow-up was significantly longer in the COVID-19 group compared with the Controls (455 days vs 365 days; p<0.0001).ConclusionThe work provides evidence of potential for an emerging opioid problem associated with the influence of COVID-19 on elective arthroplasty services. Viable alternatives to opioid analgesia for those with end-stage arthritis should be explored, and prolonged waiting times for surgery ought to be avoided in the recovery from COVID-19 to prevent more widespread opioid use.

Level IV evidence.

Diagnostic Study Level III - Study of nonconsecutive patients (without consistently applying the reference 'gold' standard).