Purpose With the COVID-19 crisis, recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) are necessary for protection in orthopaedics and traumatology. The primary purpose of this study is to review and present current evidence and recommendations for personal protective equipment and safety recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons and trauma surgeons. Methods A systematic review of the available literature was performed using the keyword terms “COVID-19”, “Coronavirus”, “surgeon”, “health-care workers”, “protection”, “masks”, “gloves”, “gowns”, “helmets”, and “aerosol” in several combinations. The following databases were assessed: Pubmed, Cochrane Reviews, Google Scholar. Due to the paucity of available data, it was decided to present it in a narrative manner. In addition, participating doctors were asked to provide their guidelines for PPE in their countries (Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, UK) for consideration in the presented practice recommendations. Results World Health Organization guidance for respiratory aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as intubation in a COVID19 environment was clear and included the use of an FFP3 (filtering face piece level 3) mask and face protection. However, the recommendation for surgical AGPs, such as the use of high-speed power tools in the operating theatre, was not clear until the UK Public Health England (PHE) guidance of 27 March 2020. This guidance included FFP3 masks and face protection, which UK surgeons quickly adopted. The recommended PPE for orthopaedic surgeons, working in a COVID19 environment, should consist of level 4 surgical gowns, face shields or goggles, double gloves, FFP2-3 or N95-99 respirator masks. An alternative to the mask, face shield and goggles is a powered air-purifying respirator, particularly if the surgeons fail the mask fit test or are required to undertake a long procedure. However, there is a high cost and limited availabilty of these devices at present. Currently available surgical helmets and toga systems may not be the solution due to a permeable top for air intake. During the current COVID-19 crisis, it appeared that telemedicine can be considered as an electronic personal protective equipment by reducing the number of physical contacts and risk contamination. Conclusion Orthopaedic and trauma surgery using power tools, pulsatile lavage and electrocautery are surgical aerosol-generating procedures and all body fluids contain virus particles. Raising awareness of these issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19 to the surgical team by aerosolization of blood or other body fluids and hence adequate PPE should be available and used during orthopaedic surgery. In addition, efforts have to be made to improve the current evidence in this regard. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose: One of the most pertinent questions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is: what could be considered normal coronal alignment? This study aims to define normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal alignment using large data from a computed tomography (CT)‐scan database and previously published phenotypes.Methods: Coronal alignment parameters from 11,191 knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients were measured based on three dimensional reconstructed CT data using a validated planning software. Based on these measurements, patients' coronal alignment was phenotyped according to the functional knee phenotype concept. These phenotypes represent an alignment variation of the overall hip knee ankle angle (HKA), femoral mechanical angle (FMA) and tibial mechanical angle (TMA). Each phenotype is defined by a specific mean and covers a range of ±1.5° from this mean. Coronal alignment is classified as normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant based on distribution frequency. Mean values and distribution among the phenotypes are presented and compared between two populations (OA patients in this study and non‐OA patients from a previously published study).Results: The arithmetic HKA (aHKA), combined normalised data of FMA and TMA, showed that 36.0% of knees were neutral within ±1 SD from the mean in both angles, 44.3% had either a TMA or a FMA within ±1–2 SD (normally aligned), 15.3% of the patients were deviant within ±2–3 SD and only 4.4% of them had an aberrant alignment (±3–4 SD in 3.4% and >4 SD in 1.0% of the patients respectively). However, combining the normalised data of HKA, FMA and TMA, 15.4% of patients were neutral in all three angles, 39.7% were at least normal, 27.7% had at least one deviant angle and 17.2% had at least one aberrant angle. For HKA, the males exhibited 1° varus and females were neutral. For FMA, the females exhibited 0.7° more valgus in mean than males and grew 1.8° per category (males grew 2.1° per category). For TMA, the males exhibited 1.3° more varus than females and both grew 2.3° and 2.4° (females) per category. Normal coronal alignment was 179.2° ± 2.8–5.6° (males) and 180.5 > ± 2.8–5.6° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 2.1–4.2° (males) and 93.8 > ± 1.8–3.6° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 2.3–4.6° (males) and 88 > ± 2.4–4.8° (females) for TMA. This means HKA 6.4 varus or 4.8° valgus (males) or 5.1° varus to 6.1° valgus was considered normal. For FMA HKA 1.1 varus or 7.3° valgus (males) or 0.2° valgus to 7.4° valgus was considered normal. For TMA HKA 7.9 varus or 1.3° valgus (males) or 6.8° varus to 2.8° valgus was considered normal. Aberrant coronal alignment started from 179.2° ± 8.4° (males) and 180.5 > ± 8.4° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 6.3° (males) 93.8 > ± 5.4° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 6.9° (males) and 88 > ± 7.2° (females) for TMA. This means HKA > 9.2° varus or 7.6° valgus (males) or 7.9° varus to 8.9° valgus was considered aberrant.Conclusion: Definitions of neutrality, normality, deviance as well as aberrance for coronal alignment in TKA were proposed in this study according to their distribution frequencies. This can be seen as an important first step towards a safe transition from the conventional one‐size‐fits‐all to a more personalised coronal alignment target. There should be further definitions combining bony alignment, joint surfaces' morphology, soft tissue laxities and joint kinematics.Level of Evidence: III.