COVID-19 and orthopaedic surgery in a large trauma centre in India

  1. Kannan Karuppiah Kumar
  2. Thomas Chandy
  3. MN Kumar
  4. Muniramaiah Ravishankar
  5. Chetan Rai
  6. A Chetan
  7. Vijay Girish
  8. Krishna Kumar
  9. Praveen S Battepati
  10. Deepak G Shivarathre
  11. Harish Puranik
  12. Noel Naleen Kumar
  13. Harshvardhan
  14. NK Deepu
  15. Mayur Shetty

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We are in the midst of a pandemic caused by the novel SARS-Cov-2 virus. A large percentage of the patients are asymptomatic and hospitals around the world are struggling to restart routine services. We report the results of a universal testing protocol of all patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery in the month of July 2020 in a large orthopaedic speciality hospital in Bangalore, India.

Methods:

A retrospective study of all patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery in the month of July 2020 at a tertiary care orthopaedic speciality hospital in Bangalore, India. All patients underwent nasopharyngeal swab test before surgery. A questionnaire was used to assess the patient before the RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab test. Data regarding imaging, investigations and follow up was recorded.

Results:

In the month of July 2020, 168 patients underwent routine nasopharyngeal RT-PCR swab test for COVID-19 prior to planned orthopaedic surgical procedure (Both trauma and elective cases). 16 of the RT-PCR tests were positive. However vascular cases and absolute emergencies were done without a RT-PCR test with PPE and all universal precautions. 11 patients underwent emergency surgery without a RT-PCR test. All 16 cases who were positive were asymptomatic. The asymptomatic positive rate was 9.52%. Of the 11 patients who underwent emergency surgery without a RT-PCR test, only one patient had a positive test post-operatively.

Conclusions:

Routine nasopharyngeal RT-PCR testing revealed a high rate of asymptomatic cases. If the RT-PCR test is positive, it is best to defer the case till the test returns negative. All precautions must be taken while performing emergency surgeries. Our algorithm in managing patients has proven to be effective and can be replicated with ease to continue operating and taking care of orthopaedic patients during this pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.05.20188920: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: We obtained informed consent from all patients.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1177/22104917211010320
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.05.20188920v1 on medRxiv