Dedicated orthopaedic elective unit: our experience from a district general hospital

INTRODUCTION: The significance of ring-fencing orthopaedic beds and protected elective sites has recently been highlighted by the British Orthopaedic Association and the Royal College of Surgeons. During the pandemic, many such elective setups were established. This study aimed to compare the functioning and efficiency of an orthopaedic protected elective surgical unit (PESU) instituted during the pandemic with the pre-pandemic elective service at our hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures in PESU during the pandemic and a similar cohort of patients operated on via the routine elective service immediately prior to the pandemic. To minimise the effect of confounding factors, a secondary analysis was undertaken comparing total hip replacements by a single surgeon via PESU and pre-pandemic ward (PPW) over 5 months. RESULTS: A total of 192 cases were listed on PESU during the studied period whereas this number was 339 for PPW. However, more than half of those listed for a surgery on PPW were cancelled and only 162 cases were performed. PESU had a significantly better conversion rate with only 12.5% being cancelled. Forty-nine percent (87 out of 177) of the cases cancelled on PPW were due to a ‘bed unavailability’. A further 17% (30/177) and 16% (28/177) were cancelled due to ‘emergency case prioritisation’ and ‘patient deemed unfit’, respectively. In contrast, only 3 out of the 24 patients cancelled on PESU were due to bed unavailability. Single-surgeon total hip replacement showed similar demographic features for the 25 patients on PESU and 37 patients on PPW. The patients on PESU also demonstrated a decrease in length of hospital stay with an average of 3 days.