2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Restarting Elective Orthopaedic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction 

          Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in postponing non-emergency elective surgeries beginning in April 2020. Our hospital successfully restarted elective orthopaedic surgery during the pandemic to help improve the quality of life of patients with chronic disabilities. 

          This study describes the development of local protocols and pathways to allow for a safe restart of elective orthopaedic surgery in a COVID-19-free ‘green’ site. It includes the morbidity and mortality outcomes of those patients who underwent non-emergency orthopaedic operations during this time. 

          Methods 

          This is a prospective cohort study over an eight-week period evaluating 104 patients undergoing non-emergency orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-19-free surgical pathway. The primary outcome measure was 14-day postoperative mortality. The main secondary outcome measures were the development of a COVID-19 infection in the hospital and 14 days postoperatively as well as the need for intensive care unit admissions. 

          Results 

          No patients developed a COVID-19 infection. There were no intensive care unit admissions or postoperative deaths during our study time frame. There was no statistical difference seen for age (< 70 or > 70), gender, body mass index, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades in the development of postoperative complications. 

          Conclusions 

          This study describes a roadmap to setting up a protocolised elective operating service for orthopaedic surgery. It has shown that standardised protocols in a COVID-19-free ‘green’ site, preoperative COVID-19 testing, and adherence to national guidelines on self-isolation can help prevent developing COVID-19 infection postoperatively and reduce the risk of postoperative mortality. 

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application

          Background: A novel human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019. There is limited support for many of its key epidemiologic features, including the incubation period for clinical disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), which has important implications for surveillance and control activities. Objective: To estimate the length of the incubation period of COVID-19 and describe its public health implications. Design: Pooled analysis of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between 4 January 2020 and 24 February 2020. Setting: News reports and press releases from 50 provinces, regions, and countries outside Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Participants: Persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection outside Hubei province, China. Measurements: Patient demographic characteristics and dates and times of possible exposure, symptom onset, fever onset, and hospitalization. Results: There were 181 confirmed cases with identifiable exposure and symptom onset windows to estimate the incubation period of COVID-19. The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10 000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine. Limitation: Publicly reported cases may overrepresent severe cases, the incubation period for which may differ from that of mild cases. Conclusion: This work provides additional evidence for a median incubation period for COVID-19 of approximately 5 days, similar to SARS. Our results support current proposals for the length of quarantine or active monitoring of persons potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2, although longer monitoring periods might be justified in extreme cases. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries.

            With advances in the effectiveness of treatment and disease management, the contribution of chronic comorbid diseases (comorbidities) found within the Charlson comorbidity index to mortality is likely to have changed since development of the index in 1984. The authors reevaluated the Charlson index and reassigned weights to each condition by identifying and following patients to observe mortality within 1 year after hospital discharge. They applied the updated index and weights to hospital discharge data from 6 countries and tested for their ability to predict in-hospital mortality. Compared with the original Charlson weights, weights generated from the Calgary, Alberta, Canada, data (2004) were 0 for 5 comorbidities, decreased for 3 comorbidities, increased for 4 comorbidities, and did not change for 5 comorbidities. The C statistics for discriminating in-hospital mortality between the new score generated from the 12 comorbidities and the Charlson score were 0.825 (new) and 0.808 (old), respectively, in Australian data (2008), 0.828 and 0.825 in Canadian data (2008), 0.878 and 0.882 in French data (2004), 0.727 and 0.723 in Japanese data (2008), 0.831 and 0.836 in New Zealand data (2008), and 0.869 and 0.876 in Swiss data (2008). The updated index of 12 comorbidities showed good-to-excellent discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality in data from 6 countries and may be more appropriate for use with more recent administrative data. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

              The objective of this study was to develop a prospectively applicable method for classifying comorbid conditions which might alter the risk of mortality for use in longitudinal studies. A weighted index that takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid disease was developed in a cohort of 559 medical patients. The 1-yr mortality rates for the different scores were: "0", 12% (181); "1-2", 26% (225); "3-4", 52% (71); and "greater than or equal to 5", 85% (82). The index was tested for its ability to predict risk of death from comorbid disease in the second cohort of 685 patients during a 10-yr follow-up. The percent of patients who died of comorbid disease for the different scores were: "0", 8% (588); "1", 25% (54); "2", 48% (25); "greater than or equal to 3", 59% (18). With each increased level of the comorbidity index, there were stepwise increases in the cumulative mortality attributable to comorbid disease (log rank chi 2 = 165; p less than 0.0001). In this longer follow-up, age was also a predictor of mortality (p less than 0.001). The new index performed similarly to a previous system devised by Kaplan and Feinstein. The method of classifying comorbidity provides a simple, readily applicable and valid method of estimating risk of death from comorbid disease for use in longitudinal studies. Further work in larger populations is still required to refine the approach because the number of patients with any given condition in this study was relatively small.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                12 July 2021
                July 2021
                : 13
                : 7
                : e16343
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Trauma and Orthopaedics, Basildon University Hospital, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon, GBR
                [2 ] Spine Surgery, Basildon University Hospital, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon, GBR
                Author notes
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.16343
                8357344
                34395125
                4278c837-c5dc-4a6f-95b3-bb125f349626
                Copyright © 2021, Vusirikala et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 12 July 2021
                Categories
                Orthopedics
                Trauma

                protocol review,elective orthopaedic surgery,postoperative complication,surgical pathway,covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article